Opinion It’s Time to Ban “Right Turn on Red”

  • 🔎 If you see an alert for analytics.usips.org, this is a self-hosted system I am running as a test. It is GDPR compliant and collects no invasive information.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link (Archive)

It’s Time to Ban “Right Turn on Red”​

It’s an obsolete relic of the 1970s oil crisis. It’s dangerous to pedestrians. And, if you drive a car in the United States, you likely do it every day. It’s time to get rid of right-turn-on-red.

If you roll up to a red light in a car in Europe, you have to wait for the light to turn green before taking a right—unless the posted signage says otherwise. In Great Britain, where drivers use the left side of the road, left turns on red are not permitted. But in the United States, drivers are generally permitted to turn right at a red light, if there’s a big enough gap in the traffic for them to squeeze into. In fact, you’re likely to get honked at if you don’t do it.

That freedom sounds like a good way to keep traffic moving. Still, sometimes drivers fail to yield to pedestrians who have the right of way in the intersection. The data on right-turn-on-red crashes might be scarce, but the existingstudies suggest that these types of collisions—while rare—frequently involve a pedestrian or cyclist. Cars, instead of hitting other cars, often hit humans. Now, there’s a growing movementfor cities to do away with the traffic law altogether.

Last week, the Washington, DC, city council voted to ban right-turn-on-red (RTOR) at most city intersections (and to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs). If Mayor Muriel Bowser signs on and the bill receives Congressional approval, DC will become the second US city after New York not to allow RTOR. DC, which has struggled to curb traffic fatalities, hopes that ending RTOR will make its streets safer for cyclists, pedestrians, and wheelchair users.

So, why do US cities allow RTOR in the first place? Blame the oil crisis.

A provision of the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act said that, in order for states to receive federal assistance for mandated conservation programs, they had to enact “a traffic law or regulation which, to the maximum extent practicable consistent with safety, permits the operator of a motor vehicle to turn such vehicle right at a red stop light after stopping.” The reasoning was that RTOR would lower emissions by decreasing the amount of time that drivers spent idling at red lights.

Most states quickly fell in line. Still, some municipalities had to be forced. According to a 1978 Washington Post report, Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers, who pushed for the gas-saving measure, asked Congress to “withhold $400,500 in federal energy funds” from Washington, DC, until the city adopted the policy. At a hearing, Bumpers had “voiced irritation” about having to stop during his commute from Bethesda, Maryland, into DC. Rather than enduring a budget cut that would have required the firing of 25 DC Transportation Department employees, the city permitted RTOR. By 1980, RTOR was the law of the land nationally, except in New York City.

But transportation engineer Bill Schultheisstells me that RTOR isn’t as efficient as 1970s lawmakers would have you believe. “The savings in emissions and travel times has always been wildly overstated because it never assessed the reality that most of these drivers are immediately stopped at a signal on the cross street or stuck in traffic in urban areas,” he said in an email. “The total trip of the user was never part of the assessment.”

Take into account the growing number of hybrid and electric cars, and RTOR makes even less sense. Schultheiss says that electric cars are actually likely to increase the number of RTOR crashes “because their acceleration rates are dramatically quicker than gas powered vehicles.”

Several local news segments about the DC RTOR legislation amplified the voices of people with no expertise in traffic safety who complained that the bill would increase traffic.

“That is a reasonable first impression,” Schultheiss says, “but people don’t think about how RTOR works in reality.” In situations where “cross streets have lots of traffic gaps and long traffic signal cycle lengths” and it’s easy to turn on red, the problem is “improper signal timing on the corridor.” In that case, a better way to speed up traffic would be to shorten the lengths of traffic signal cycles on the cross streets.

In one local news segment where a reporter asked people on the street their thoughts on the end of RTOR, a man in a wheelchair said that he became disabled—and his brother and sister were killed—when a car ran a red light. The video then cuts to a shot of the reporter breezily whizzing down the sidewalk on a scooter, followed by an interview with a man bemoaning the fines that the city plans to impose on motorists who violate the RTOR rule.
623B07C6-BC72-47B4-9E90-EFD983D7D8AC.jpeg
Critics of the DC bill have pointed out the lack of data showing the dangers of RTOR, but many people who don’t use cars know instinctively how dangerous turning vehicles can be. “Our current safety studies fail to capture the reality of the constant near misses and confrontations that result between these motorists and pedestrians which can be observed daily just by observing a typical busy intersection with RTOR,” Schultheiss says.

Ending RTOR is a minor enough inconvenience for drivers that it’s unlikely to convince many of them to opt for other forms of transportation, but it is “a baby step in creating an urban environment that is more supportive of walking, bicycling and transit,” Schultheiss says. “The only path forward to reducing auto-dependence and the resulting traffic congestion is for our society to decide to shift our subsidy model from sprawl and highways to transit and housing.”
 
Friend my car is old enough it could drink if it was a person. I also have a grill guard up front and one of those 3-ball hitches locked to the back. It doesn't really matter how fast I'm going, if I T-bone just about anything I am getting the hilariously over estimated KBB value of my old car. "Yield" is a very Americanized frame but in the nautical world and many other places you have Stand-On and Give -Way vehicles in interactions. Giving-way as the stand-on is actually an incorrect action. Learn to instill this kind of attitude in your driving style and the fools that try this will be terrified at minimum. I've had a car basically U-turn into a ditch instead of getting in front of my not-stopping car.
I wouldn't care if I was driving my truck. That thing's 7000 lbs of steel and solid is fuck. I pity anyone that gets in my way in that thing. My car, not so much, I'd rather not trash it or get hurt.
 
I'm already pissed that some traffic lights in my area have "No Turn On Red" signs when the only turn is right. So this is my rebuttal to the author.

 
It's still a crime to run over pedestrians. It's even a crime to run over cyclists, so far. Right turn on red doesn't mean you can just run over grandma.

What a waste of concern.
 
"...in Europe"
"and to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs"
More "walkable" city bicycle shit for the pod people.
iirc depending on your municipality / county / etc some places in the USA already have rules on the books of bicycles treat Stop as Yield
if there's somebody else there than yeah, give a shit, but they recognize how stopping and starting is a bit of a hassle on a bike
 
Weak cyclefags and pedestrians should fear the strong

Do cyclists not know what breaks are? They always seem to go full speed into shit
 
"...in Europe"
"and to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs"
More "walkable" city bicycle shit for the pod people.
Bikers where I live already treat stop signs as yield signs, so I stop for them if they’re close by because 99% of the time they won’t stop at a stop sign. It’s annoying. They’ll stop at red lights, but not stop signs.
 
Honestly, if you don't know how kinetic energy affects the human body; then you really don't deserve to be cycling. But hey, nature will run it's course... Eventually.
 
I'm just gonna say it now, anyone who has genuine malice towards cyclists/pedestrians is a fat lazy selfish fuck. This is what our cities where turned into, a concrete shithole that requires are a car and none of you people have the intellectual depth enough to understand this. I get that banning right turns is an inconvenience but none of you "people" understand this issue.

View attachment 3750701
Ah, yes, that picture. It's like the Breezewood picture (which is basically forced perspective itself), but it's also stretched out almost six miles, as a result, cars look closer together than they actually are.

Do you also believe their revisionist history and bullshit propaganda as well?
 
Why pretend you care about road fatalities and then turn around and do this?
It's far safer if the cyclist yields when they're supposed to for everyone involved. It also saves time for people in cars. It all has to do with clipping in and out of the pedals. There's a few seconds there than can be a bit dangerous.

Yield just means you don't have to stop if there's no cross traffic, it has nothing to do with blowing through stop signs. Right of way is right of way.
 
I guess Mother Jones has run out of honest to goodness social issues to write about, so has time to write about this shit.
 
I'm just gonna say it now, anyone who has genuine malice towards cyclists/pedestrians is a fat lazy selfish fuck. This is what our cities where turned into, a concrete shithole that requires are a car and none of you people have the intellectual depth enough to understand this. I get that banning right turns is an inconvenience but none of you "people" understand this issue.

View attachment 3750701
Then lobby to get it banned in your local pod zone, nigger. The entire nation doesn't need to suffer for the mistakes of LA and NYC.
 
Back
Top Bottom