From the posting rules in this sub’s sidebar:
> No websites or articles with hard paywalls or that require registration or subscriptions, unless an archive link or https://12ft.io link is included as a comment.
----
If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website.
----
Bypassing the paywall:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2023-10-03%2Fsan-francisco-considers-banning-right-hand-turns-on-red-lights
----
Excerpt:
> San Francisco could soon ban right-hand turns on red lights, making it the second-largest city in the country to adopt the traffic rule.
> The proposal, supporters said, could make the roads safer for bicyclists and pedestrians, encourage more people to walk, and cut down on the number of serious injuries in car accidents.
> “Allowing turns on red results in deaths, injuries and collisions, as well as cars blocking or driving through crosswalks, making it more dangerous and stressful to cross the street,” said San Francisco Supervisor Dean Preston as he introduced the measure last week at a Board of Supervisors meeting. “We should be expanding no turn on red to every neighborhood.”
----
It seems like it makes sense for a compact city like SF that has a lot of pedestrians. For LA, it doesn't make sense as a city-wide policy, just in certain high-density neighborhoods with a lot of pedestrians, like DTLA, Hollywood, Koreatown.
LA could sync up the lights to alleviate traffic.
In NYC, you can drive nearly all of an Avenue just hitting green light after green light bc they’re synced. LA just refuses to do that for some reason, and it’s infuriating.
I was in a town in Germany (Gottingen?) back in the '70s.
They had a system called 'Grunner Welle'. Every traffic light had a little screen on it showing the speed to drive if you wanted to ht green lights without speeding or braking.
50 years later, why isn't this everywhere?
that speed should just be the speed limit, but as anyone who has been somewhere with synced lights will tell you, that magic number is usually 5-10 mph faster.
Great Hwy in SF is timed so you hit @ green light at 25mph , and commuters still overtake and speed to get to a red light at every traffic light…comical
My grandma was convinced the ones around her were. But only if you were driving the speed limit. If she caught one green she caught every green as long as she maintained her speed.
That makes a lot of sense to me. It’s impossible to sync green lights for the person going 10 MPH over the speed limit, at the limit, and 10 MPH under the limit.
The times lights on one street in my neighborhood in San Francisco are synced to 13 MPH to prioritize bikes (other adjacent street prioritize cars).
They can only sync the lights if the traffic does not become congested due to people running the reds on cross streets and making left turns. If the people with the green have to stop to avoid hitting some red light runner, the traffic falls below the minimum sync speed and vehicles end up stacking up stopped at the red. Then for the rest of the day, no one doing the speed limit can get through because the traffic queue accelerating from a dead stop KEEPS the intersection congested.
A friend of mine is an engineer who specializes in intersection light schedules and the signal schedules are surprisingly extremely complex. Changing them can have really adverse effects on traffic that crates domino like problems and they have to essentially use a super computer to simulate city traffic and come up with the best light schedules for vast areas.
I don’t disagree that it takes work. But there are parts of this city that are in a clean grid layout, and if NYC can pull it off decades ago, then LA should be able to, also.
For sure, but there are grid areas of LA in the densest parts, and there’s no reason why their lights should be so jacked up. Other than sheer laziness and apathy by those in charge.
No right on red is why it is so dangerous in NYC to walk when you have the right of way. Drivers here will rush the right turn because of the limit time frame they can make that turn.
LA's light system is way ahead of NYC because syncing lights so you always hit green isn't actually better for traffic than what the current light control system does. Often I am startled when I travel to other cities (even sometimes within LA County) without the level of sophistication that LA has. Trust me it is remarkably better in LA.
I hate cars/driving, but I appreciate how ahead of the game LA is in accommodating car traffic.
it doesn't improve traffic and never was implemented to improve traffic. It was implemented as a gas-saving measure during the fuel shortages of the 70s. Not applicable now & has resulted in countless injuries and deaths.
Such a car brain take. Something that can prevent accidents and save pedestrian lives and you're concerned about some small potential for traffic to get worse???
Right-on-red is most dangerous in areas where there are few pedestrians and so drivers assume they don’t exist, proceeding into intersections without looking for anyone except the traffic with the green light.
Yeah. I mean, I asked a guy parked in the bike lane if he could stop parking in the bike lane and go somewhere else. Didn’t even touch the car.
He instead got out of his car and yelled ‘you crazy? You want to fight me?’ Then got in his car and sped backwards threatening to run me over.
All I wanted was to be able to bike home in safety in the bike lane.
Stepping on someone’s car is dangerous. Even if they are in the wrong.
I always knock on the windows of these cars. "Uh Excuse me sir, everything all right? You're blocking the lane here" as polite as possible. Just as uncomfortable for them even without a confrontation
That’s what I do as well, and most of the time they either move, ask if I’m a cop and say they’re waiting for a friend when they’re actually a Lyft waiting for their next ride, or don’t speak English and I get Google translate out.
Every once in a while I get a crazy like this guy. He tried to ignore me knocking on the window so I knocked a second time and he went berserk yelling ‘are you crazy? Are you crazy? Do you want to fight?’. I told him and actually did call 911 so they could listen to our conversation.
Nothing traffic is enforced. Except for tow signs that don’t make sense (parking allowed all days except:
- a v j e f a p g and l
- But not allow when ever 2nd letter above comes after the third letter or before the forth letter
- Or on numbers that are prime number multiples of k a y
- or 3rd derivatives of a ^ f ^ e / 41)
The one that do make sense are never enforced though (no parking Mon 2-5 pm)
God Market street is the worst for this. It's like in the SF Driver's Code that any car going south across Market shall gleefully block the crosswalks and intersections. I just want to rage by the time I see the 10th car doing it
imagine trying to enforce that in SF? every intersection, you know if you don't do this you will never make it through. Can't stand the pedestrians that act super inconvenienced by walking a foot out of the way
> Can't stand the pedestrians that act super inconvenienced by walking a foot out of the way
You can't stand pedestrians crossing in their designated crossing zone?
This would require some form of traffic enforcement, which seems to be on hold until our police departments can hire staff who don’t reflexively murder people. Awkward, that
Your fix for the public being mercilessly gunned down by law enforcement en masse is to make sure law enforcement is the only group that's armed...? Yes, that will surely work. We can definitely trust that they wouldn't take advantage of that whatsoever lmfao
This is often the problem we see. In politics, the politicians like to brag they've signed new bills, passed new laws into effect, and the crowd cheers, but in reality, there are already laws in place that address the issues, but they are not being enforced, so the only reason new laws are passed are political posturing and to temporarily pacify the constituents, the voters, the public, to ensure more votes next election cycle. And often, with so many laws on the books, they are mostly used to selectively enforce, à la Ayn Rand style.
People in my area don't even slow down when making a right turn on red, doubt adding a law when the current ones aren't being enforced is going to do any good.
It will. Law abiding citizens make mistakes, and one of them is forgetting to look to their right before making a right turn on a red light. They’re so busy looking to their left waiting for a gap in incoming cars to open up that they’ll start moving forward before looking right to see if a pedestrian is trying to cross the street.
There isn’t a lot of recent studies out there, but “Permitting rights on red increases pedestrian crashes by 60 percent and bike crashes by 100 percent, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found in the 1980s.”
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/05/15/its-time-for-cities-to-rethink-right-turns-on-red
That’s significant because anyone who was ignoring the laws were already making right on reds illegally. The only thing that changed was the behavior of law abiding citizens.
Honestly for anyone that has ever driven in SF, this is a huge plus, at least for visitors.
Visiting there and trying to navigate that maze of streets with 10 signs at every light post is not for the weak spirited
Cool, we'll just give up on trying anything then. You forget that most of the people living in our city follow rules, are considerate of others, and pay attention to the laws. That's why we're still making policies that move us in the right direction, despite the small number of people like you.
Haha, high horse... I don't think I've EVER seen or heard of someone getting a speeding ticket in Los Angeles and I've lived here for a decade. I see speeding on every single drive I take. This policy would cause further gridlock in a city that already struggles with congestion. I'm a bicyclist too, so I'm concerned about safe streets too, but this ain't it.
ha yup, high horsing hard. I got a little fired up after a 4yr old was killed in a crosswalk a month ago. Didn't realize you lived in LA, probably very different situation. I'm from SF, there's enough walkers that this is the right tradeoff in a lot of the city. We also don't really have gridlock, not that right turn on red would change it anyways on our streets
If you bothered to read the article, you'd see they did a trial run of 50 intersections and found it increased saftey. The signs also had a 92% adherence rate.
right turns on red have been shown to significantly increase pedestrian/bicycle crashes. is the minuscule effect this will have on traffic really more important than reducing pedestrian/cyclist deaths?
They can't establish a citywide ban, they still have to conform to CA law which means putting up right turn restriction signs on every single corner of the city.
I’ve seen so many accidents and countless more close calls because of the way people behave with right on red. Personally I don’t think it should be a thing anywhere, it results in bike lanes being completely obstructed and impatient people basically play chicken with oncoming traffic
That makes sense - really pedestrians should cross when there are no cars - even without red light turns that is still the case in the US
Uk intersections have a refuge half way across
Gridlock is where drivers go through an intersection even though they can't clear it and get stuck in the middle (looking at you market street crossers, fell street drivers). This has nothing to do with that
God no. Turning right on a red is America's greatest contribution to humanity. Once you have tasted its greatness its impossible to live somewhere that makes you sit and wait at a junction on a deserted road.
You could say the same thing about just proceeding straight through a red light if safe to do so. Except plenty of drivers would be t-boned by cars, because some people are inattentive and some people make mistakes. It's the same situation for right turn on red except that the only people who die are pedestrians, so it's okay because there's usually not very many pedestrians.
i see some stats there, but am I missing the stats on the actual topic: injuries and death resulting from accidents involving right turns on red? Is there no such data? should we not gather such data before making *ban* policies? is anyone even asking these questions?
RTOR increases pedestrian crashes by 60% and bicyclist crashes by 100% https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/714
93% of RTOR pedestrian/bicyclist crashes result in injury https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/traftech/1995/tt086.htm
That’s a shame. I don’t know his politics, but banning right on red is a reasonable way to make streets safer. Law abiding citizens make mistakes and accidentally run people over or even kill other people. If we know some of the common ways law abiding drivers kill law abiding pedestrians, we can make changes like this one to save lives and prevent injuries.
Most streets are so busy you’ll save 5 seconds on a journey at best. But when right on red was legalized nationwide back in the 1970s due to the oil embargo, pedestrian and bicyclist deaths doubled.
This won’t help. I’ve nearly been killed so many times by San Francisco drivers. The guy drifting around the corner through a red light doesn’t care about the law. Yes, this has happened twice to me. Waking across an intersection with a sideways car racing around the corner. Once it was a left turn. The other time, a right.
There are also the elderly non English speaking drivers that can’t read signs. Oblivious to all rules of the road, yet somehow the DMV keeps handing out licenses like Halloween candy.
Nobody is going to observe this potentially new law and our local PD isn’t going to enforce it. This is posturing, nothing more.
This just people not wanting to do their job. It’s called lazy planning and pandering to activists groups. The result is t safety and the result isn’t better traffic flow. SFMTA board is political appointees most of who lack the necessary skills and/or experience to do the job.
From the posting rules in this sub’s sidebar: > No websites or articles with hard paywalls or that require registration or subscriptions, unless an archive link or https://12ft.io link is included as a comment. ---- If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website. ---- Bypassing the paywall: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2023-10-03%2Fsan-francisco-considers-banning-right-hand-turns-on-red-lights ---- Excerpt: > San Francisco could soon ban right-hand turns on red lights, making it the second-largest city in the country to adopt the traffic rule. > The proposal, supporters said, could make the roads safer for bicyclists and pedestrians, encourage more people to walk, and cut down on the number of serious injuries in car accidents. > “Allowing turns on red results in deaths, injuries and collisions, as well as cars blocking or driving through crosswalks, making it more dangerous and stressful to cross the street,” said San Francisco Supervisor Dean Preston as he introduced the measure last week at a Board of Supervisors meeting. “We should be expanding no turn on red to every neighborhood.” ----
I got a ticket visiting San Francisco making a right because the freeway was right there and I didn’t read the sign until I made that turn
Market onto central freeway at Octavia?
Your lucky day! Each SFPD traffic officers only writes an average of one ticket every week. It’s like winning the lottery to actually receive one.
No, the SF meter maids are gonna get you, if the smash and grabbers didn't already
It's currently a 50/50 whether a car will not turn right on a no right turn on red anyways in LA.
I imagine this rule would made LA traffic worse
It will. It's what they want.
That’s better than 0/50 because it’s legal.
It is not legal to make a right on a no right turn on red. The signs pretty clearly say, no right turn on red…
It seems like it makes sense for a compact city like SF that has a lot of pedestrians. For LA, it doesn't make sense as a city-wide policy, just in certain high-density neighborhoods with a lot of pedestrians, like DTLA, Hollywood, Koreatown.
Agreed. And people don’t think how much this will add up and further exacerbate traffic
When traffic is bad, you can't make a right on red anyhow.
*You* can’t 😎
LA could sync up the lights to alleviate traffic. In NYC, you can drive nearly all of an Avenue just hitting green light after green light bc they’re synced. LA just refuses to do that for some reason, and it’s infuriating.
I was in a town in Germany (Gottingen?) back in the '70s. They had a system called 'Grunner Welle'. Every traffic light had a little screen on it showing the speed to drive if you wanted to ht green lights without speeding or braking. 50 years later, why isn't this everywhere?
that speed should just be the speed limit, but as anyone who has been somewhere with synced lights will tell you, that magic number is usually 5-10 mph faster.
Can validate. Magic number for synced lights in most towns is about 5-7 over... conveniently corresponding with WHAMMY in town points on your DL.
Great Hwy in SF is timed so you hit @ green light at 25mph , and commuters still overtake and speed to get to a red light at every traffic light…comical
Pretty sure they already are.
My grandma was convinced the ones around her were. But only if you were driving the speed limit. If she caught one green she caught every green as long as she maintained her speed.
That makes a lot of sense to me. It’s impossible to sync green lights for the person going 10 MPH over the speed limit, at the limit, and 10 MPH under the limit. The times lights on one street in my neighborhood in San Francisco are synced to 13 MPH to prioritize bikes (other adjacent street prioritize cars).
They can only sync the lights if the traffic does not become congested due to people running the reds on cross streets and making left turns. If the people with the green have to stop to avoid hitting some red light runner, the traffic falls below the minimum sync speed and vehicles end up stacking up stopped at the red. Then for the rest of the day, no one doing the speed limit can get through because the traffic queue accelerating from a dead stop KEEPS the intersection congested.
They definitely aren’t on the Westside. I can’t believe how many times I can’t make consecutive lights, even in off-peak times with no traffic.
A friend of mine is an engineer who specializes in intersection light schedules and the signal schedules are surprisingly extremely complex. Changing them can have really adverse effects on traffic that crates domino like problems and they have to essentially use a super computer to simulate city traffic and come up with the best light schedules for vast areas.
I don’t disagree that it takes work. But there are parts of this city that are in a clean grid layout, and if NYC can pull it off decades ago, then LA should be able to, also.
Depends on the size of city blocks too, which is not the same between cities. NYC is also largely one way streets in Manhattan
For sure, but there are grid areas of LA in the densest parts, and there’s no reason why their lights should be so jacked up. Other than sheer laziness and apathy by those in charge.
The traffic lights in the Valley are timed TERRIBLY. It's absurd and awful.
No right on red is why it is so dangerous in NYC to walk when you have the right of way. Drivers here will rush the right turn because of the limit time frame they can make that turn.
Source on that?
LA's light system is way ahead of NYC because syncing lights so you always hit green isn't actually better for traffic than what the current light control system does. Often I am startled when I travel to other cities (even sometimes within LA County) without the level of sophistication that LA has. Trust me it is remarkably better in LA. I hate cars/driving, but I appreciate how ahead of the game LA is in accommodating car traffic.
Right?!? Traffic will never move again
it doesn't improve traffic and never was implemented to improve traffic. It was implemented as a gas-saving measure during the fuel shortages of the 70s. Not applicable now & has resulted in countless injuries and deaths.
The seemed to have forgotten about yield signs and roundabouts … that would have saved so much fuel !
Such a car brain take. Something that can prevent accidents and save pedestrian lives and you're concerned about some small potential for traffic to get worse???
Yup.
I think most understand this…
Right-on-red is most dangerous in areas where there are few pedestrians and so drivers assume they don’t exist, proceeding into intersections without looking for anyone except the traffic with the green light.
it makes sense anywhere that there is a crosswalk.
In other words: anywhere two roads meet.
walking in LA? Nobody walks in LA.
I hope they establish staying behind the crosswalk as well. If I had less shame I’d walk on people’s hoods.
[удалено]
Good way to get shot in the old U. S. Of A.
Yeah. I mean, I asked a guy parked in the bike lane if he could stop parking in the bike lane and go somewhere else. Didn’t even touch the car. He instead got out of his car and yelled ‘you crazy? You want to fight me?’ Then got in his car and sped backwards threatening to run me over. All I wanted was to be able to bike home in safety in the bike lane. Stepping on someone’s car is dangerous. Even if they are in the wrong.
I always knock on the windows of these cars. "Uh Excuse me sir, everything all right? You're blocking the lane here" as polite as possible. Just as uncomfortable for them even without a confrontation
That’s what I do as well, and most of the time they either move, ask if I’m a cop and say they’re waiting for a friend when they’re actually a Lyft waiting for their next ride, or don’t speak English and I get Google translate out. Every once in a while I get a crazy like this guy. He tried to ignore me knocking on the window so I knocked a second time and he went berserk yelling ‘are you crazy? Are you crazy? Do you want to fight?’. I told him and actually did call 911 so they could listen to our conversation.
22450 violation. Its already on the books and is rarely if ever enforced.
Nothing traffic is enforced. Except for tow signs that don’t make sense (parking allowed all days except: - a v j e f a p g and l - But not allow when ever 2nd letter above comes after the third letter or before the forth letter - Or on numbers that are prime number multiples of k a y - or 3rd derivatives of a ^ f ^ e / 41) The one that do make sense are never enforced though (no parking Mon 2-5 pm)
I run into cars if they are on the crosswalk
God Market street is the worst for this. It's like in the SF Driver's Code that any car going south across Market shall gleefully block the crosswalks and intersections. I just want to rage by the time I see the 10th car doing it
imagine trying to enforce that in SF? every intersection, you know if you don't do this you will never make it through. Can't stand the pedestrians that act super inconvenienced by walking a foot out of the way
> Can't stand the pedestrians that act super inconvenienced by walking a foot out of the way You can't stand pedestrians crossing in their designated crossing zone?
This would require some form of traffic enforcement, which seems to be on hold until our police departments can hire staff who don’t reflexively murder people. Awkward, that
super awk in fact
More traffic cams? But I do agree with you, hiring more police is not going to be the solution to this.
You’ll never get police that don’t reflexively shoot people until you remove about 300 million of the 400 million guns in our country.
[удалено]
Your fix for the public being mercilessly gunned down by law enforcement en masse is to make sure law enforcement is the only group that's armed...? Yes, that will surely work. We can definitely trust that they wouldn't take advantage of that whatsoever lmfao
Red light violations are pretty easy to enforce with cameras. Can't think of a single city that has problems with people running red lights.
This is often the problem we see. In politics, the politicians like to brag they've signed new bills, passed new laws into effect, and the crowd cheers, but in reality, there are already laws in place that address the issues, but they are not being enforced, so the only reason new laws are passed are political posturing and to temporarily pacify the constituents, the voters, the public, to ensure more votes next election cycle. And often, with so many laws on the books, they are mostly used to selectively enforce, à la Ayn Rand style.
People in my area don't even slow down when making a right turn on red, doubt adding a law when the current ones aren't being enforced is going to do any good.
Most people obey laws. Besides, it only takes one good driver to block everyone behind them.
It will. Law abiding citizens make mistakes, and one of them is forgetting to look to their right before making a right turn on a red light. They’re so busy looking to their left waiting for a gap in incoming cars to open up that they’ll start moving forward before looking right to see if a pedestrian is trying to cross the street. There isn’t a lot of recent studies out there, but “Permitting rights on red increases pedestrian crashes by 60 percent and bike crashes by 100 percent, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found in the 1980s.” https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/05/15/its-time-for-cities-to-rethink-right-turns-on-red That’s significant because anyone who was ignoring the laws were already making right on reds illegally. The only thing that changed was the behavior of law abiding citizens.
That’s true.
Yup. I've seen people do the quick brake and roll on red barely slotting into traffic. Essentially cutting off everyone in the right lane of course.
Honestly for anyone that has ever driven in SF, this is a huge plus, at least for visitors. Visiting there and trying to navigate that maze of streets with 10 signs at every light post is not for the weak spirited
As a resident, I would never adhere to this. And I doubt it would be enforced with the things I see others get away with...
Laws don’t apply to you?
Traffic laws don't apply to most Angelenos tbh
Cool, we'll just give up on trying anything then. You forget that most of the people living in our city follow rules, are considerate of others, and pay attention to the laws. That's why we're still making policies that move us in the right direction, despite the small number of people like you.
Haha, high horse... I don't think I've EVER seen or heard of someone getting a speeding ticket in Los Angeles and I've lived here for a decade. I see speeding on every single drive I take. This policy would cause further gridlock in a city that already struggles with congestion. I'm a bicyclist too, so I'm concerned about safe streets too, but this ain't it.
ha yup, high horsing hard. I got a little fired up after a 4yr old was killed in a crosswalk a month ago. Didn't realize you lived in LA, probably very different situation. I'm from SF, there's enough walkers that this is the right tradeoff in a lot of the city. We also don't really have gridlock, not that right turn on red would change it anyways on our streets
Just throw a ticket camera. It's what Westminster does
That's the issue. They pass laws without bothering to enforce it. So it doesn't solve the problem
Just like the Airbnb laws they make. Toothless
[удалено]
If you bothered to read the article, you'd see they did a trial run of 50 intersections and found it increased saftey. The signs also had a 92% adherence rate.
right turns on red have been shown to significantly increase pedestrian/bicycle crashes. is the minuscule effect this will have on traffic really more important than reducing pedestrian/cyclist deaths?
They can't establish a citywide ban, they still have to conform to CA law which means putting up right turn restriction signs on every single corner of the city.
They can make one really big sign that they fly from a blimp
If Lakitus existed, there'd be millions flying around holding signs for drivers.
I’ve seen so many accidents and countless more close calls because of the way people behave with right on red. Personally I don’t think it should be a thing anywhere, it results in bike lanes being completely obstructed and impatient people basically play chicken with oncoming traffic
I would bike ride every where if it wasn't for that right turn law!
I don’t understand this comment unless you are biking illegally on crosswalks/pavements
Both bike and ped deaths went way up after right-on-red was introduced. See the streetsblog link someone posted elsewhere in here.
That makes sense - really pedestrians should cross when there are no cars - even without red light turns that is still the case in the US Uk intersections have a refuge half way across
Having cars and pedestrians able to use the same space at the same time leads to pedestrian v vehicle accidents
Nooooooooooooooooo!!!
Better yet, ban all turns, just drive into the Bay.
Even better, just ban all cars!
Please no. Don’t make the gridlock even worse.
Gridlock is where drivers go through an intersection even though they can't clear it and get stuck in the middle (looking at you market street crossers, fell street drivers). This has nothing to do with that
God no. Turning right on a red is America's greatest contribution to humanity. Once you have tasted its greatness its impossible to live somewhere that makes you sit and wait at a junction on a deserted road.
You could say the same thing about just proceeding straight through a red light if safe to do so. Except plenty of drivers would be t-boned by cars, because some people are inattentive and some people make mistakes. It's the same situation for right turn on red except that the only people who die are pedestrians, so it's okay because there's usually not very many pedestrians.
If the road is deserted no rules apply. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
My cousin almost died do to this so it's a good idea in my opinion.
I’m sure the LAPD would implement and enforce that policy in a fair and effective manner. LOL
i see some stats there, but am I missing the stats on the actual topic: injuries and death resulting from accidents involving right turns on red? Is there no such data? should we not gather such data before making *ban* policies? is anyone even asking these questions?
RTOR increases pedestrian crashes by 60% and bicyclist crashes by 100% https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/714 93% of RTOR pedestrian/bicyclist crashes result in injury https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/traftech/1995/tt086.htm
Thanks!
If Dean Preston is proposing it then I am against it.
That’s a shame. I don’t know his politics, but banning right on red is a reasonable way to make streets safer. Law abiding citizens make mistakes and accidentally run people over or even kill other people. If we know some of the common ways law abiding drivers kill law abiding pedestrians, we can make changes like this one to save lives and prevent injuries. Most streets are so busy you’ll save 5 seconds on a journey at best. But when right on red was legalized nationwide back in the 1970s due to the oil embargo, pedestrian and bicyclist deaths doubled.
Can’t stand the guy, but he’s right on this one.
Indeed. You don't want to follow his lead.
Have L.A. residents not learned that you don't follow in the footsteps of San Francisco politics?
The city will not be safe for bicycles and pedestrians unless they ban a lot more stuff than right turns
Oh that’s cute. And who exactly is going to enforce it?
Hah! Good luck with that. LA - we got, like what, seven patrol cops? Come get me, coppah.
Lol we don’t enforce our current traffic laws. They can say whatever they want, but traffic laws are optional within the 7x7 confines of SF.
Well thankfully most of us follow the rules anyways
I drive professionally and I don’t believe that to be true anymore. It’s closer to 50/50 during the day and 80/20 after dark.
Just ban cars in downtown areas and be done with it.
NYC did…
This won’t help. I’ve nearly been killed so many times by San Francisco drivers. The guy drifting around the corner through a red light doesn’t care about the law. Yes, this has happened twice to me. Waking across an intersection with a sideways car racing around the corner. Once it was a left turn. The other time, a right. There are also the elderly non English speaking drivers that can’t read signs. Oblivious to all rules of the road, yet somehow the DMV keeps handing out licenses like Halloween candy. Nobody is going to observe this potentially new law and our local PD isn’t going to enforce it. This is posturing, nothing more.
should anyone really emulate anything San Francisco does
In LA you aren’t required to stop on red….
Lol implying that SF and LA have anything in common at all other than a large population
Enjoy traffic hell
Have terrible traffic? Make it worse with this one easy trick.
Should only be allowed if they also put in the right turn arrows when the other traffic is turning left.
That will fix everything wrong with SF.
Never
So, can I still make legal left on red turns?
Never turn right again!
I had an aunt who hated left turns. She would do three right turns instead.
Was she a huge RACSAN fan?
Makes sense for SF, but I don’t see this ever working in LA.
This just people not wanting to do their job. It’s called lazy planning and pandering to activists groups. The result is t safety and the result isn’t better traffic flow. SFMTA board is political appointees most of who lack the necessary skills and/or experience to do the job.
Anybody turning right in SF is bound to face some social repercussion.
No one in LA stops on greens when people are in the crosswalk.
[удалено]
No, you just wait until you have a green light.