Turning right on red is one of those idea that once you've been exposed to it you wonder why isn't everybody adopting it...
A similar idea is the train system in Munich where they built their platforms such that they can open doors on both sides, making one side of the train the exit, and the other side the entrance. Ever since I saw that, every single time I wait for people getting off a crowded train, I wonder "Why?".
> Turning right on red is one of those idea that once you've been exposed to it you wonder why isn't everybody adopting it...
It was first introduced in the 70s in the US in response to high oil prices, and only after road safety tests apparently demonstrated its safety. But since then there's been a fair amount of research indicating it increases accidents and pedestrian fatalities, amounting to somewhere under 100 deaths per year. The original studies were not large enough to detect the effect.
And now, turning right on a red light is just a cash cow for the slimy red light camera companies. Some areas report that upwards of 95% of the tickets issued by red light cameras were for not stopping for 6 seconds before turning right on a red light.
("In a two-month period in 2010 in South San Francisco, 98 percent of the 672 red-light violations recorded at El Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard were for right turns. Other cities say 4 in 5 tickets go to people turning right at intersections."
I thought California DMV rules only said you had to treat a red-light right like a stop sign. Make a complete stop then move. I don't recall reading anything about 6 seconds and the article doesn't mention that either.
NB: you should always make a complete stop when turning right on red (even if state regs don't require it). And slow down a LOT when turning right in general. There's always a risk of hitting a pedestrian or bicyclist coming up from behind you.
Sure, but the vast majority of the funds from tickets go to the city - that's who it's really a "cash cow" for. And the municipalities are the ones actually making the rules that govern the tickets themselves. Why "slimy companies", and not "slimy City Halls"?
But yes, city hall is slimy as well. Citizens do not get any say in the matter. Citizens do not get to vote to add red light cameras. You just see them going up, and fighting them is a long, hard road. Some cities in Texas have finally banned them, fortunately.
Redflex/etc are definitely profiting plenty off of the devices. No question about that.
If modern fuel-injected cars had automagic engine running management a-la hybrids, mucho idling gas could be saved. Modern engines apparently can save gas by shutting off if expected to stop for any more than 10 seconds.
It's not as commonly done because it's considerably more expensive to build triple platforms, and the bends required to make it work slow the train down and cause wear. It's good for high-capacity stations though.
When trains run in tunnels, or even when on aboveground rights-of-way, the rails are generally spaced very close together. A 3-platform station therefore requires the tracks to turn away from each other to make room for the central platform.
They don't usually have to be that sharp, but they tend to be noticeably sharper than the turns in the route.
NYC has no right on red. After getting used to I loved it. Now I live in another city with right on red and a fair amount of bike and pedestrian traffic.
Turning right on red means looking out for cars, people, bikes and having the pressure of a car behind you - perhaps honking because it wants you to go.
> Turning right on red is one of those idea that once you've been exposed to it you wonder why isn't everybody adopting it...
Because someone who comes from your left may go forward, or someone who comes from your front mau turn left?
Where I live, we do not assume that we can turn right on red lights. Where and when that's possible, we have a blinking yellow light (basically meaning proceed with caution)..
Turning right on a red light is only permitted after establishing that it is safe to do so. Obviously you can't just assume that it'll be fine to go. The difference between your country and the US is the default value: do you have a blinking light permitting it in some places, or a sign prohibiting it where it would be unsafe?
when the idea is baked into how your whole traffic system operates, you don't have these issues. People turning right have the same right-of-way as people going straight through an intersection. People turning left must wait for all traffic to clear from the opposing lane before turning.
As for someone to your left going straight thru the intersection... you, turning right, must yield to those going straight. However, there is not always traffic coming straight through the light. If someone on the perpendicular street turns right instead of going straight thru, you may turn right from your lane into their lane because there is a pause in traffic flow coming through the intersection.
That probably doesn't make much sense but the bottom line is that when everyone knows the rules and everyone observes them, right on red is mostly painless.
People turning right have the same right-of-way as people going straight through an intersection.
No they don't, They must come to a complete stop and yield to all traffic, including people turning left. At least in NJ, I don't know about other states.
or someone who comes from your front mau turn left?
so I guess you're right in the scenario that one direction has a green light with no green arrow and the opposite direction has a red light, but how often does that scenario exist?
If both directions have a green light, left-turners yield to right-turners because of traffic behind the right-turners and stop signs are always turn based.
I believe the GP is saying that they have the same right-of-way as if they were going straight. Admittedly, the difficulty in talking about this stuff precisely does leave me wondering if some people ITT are total menaces on the roads.
There's an elevator in one of the London tube stations like this (Everyone uses the elevator, like 150 stairs). Just makes so much sense, moves so many more people that way.
You're a pedestrian at an intersection and patiently waiting for the crosswalk signal to flash walk because you want to be safe and not jaywalk. As soon as it flashes walk, a "right turner" comes zooming in and proceeds to take their right. Either they abruptly stop when they finally notice me or they don't and just roll on through and I have to jump back on the sidewalk to avoid them. I try to intentionally wait in a position that is very visible to the right turners and it still happens.
I don't feel safe legally crossing the street. It sucks.
I have only been to the USA once and I noticed this. It didn't help that I was in Florida in the late summer (very hot) so none of the locals expected there to be pedestrians!
I guess the train thing isn't done everywhere because it basically requires that you rebuild every single train station for it to work (plus, you have to re-do all the railing to have space for an additional platform in between).
> Ever since I saw that, every single time I wait for people getting off a crowded train, I wonder "Why?".
Cost reasons. Wherever you adopt this, you need two platforms to serve a train instead of one. Not saying it doesn't make sense to do, just that someone probably sat down and did a cost/benefit calculation.
A similar idea is the train system in Munich where they built their platforms such that they can open doors on both sides, making one side of the train the exit, and the other side the entrance. Ever since I saw that, every single time I wait for people getting off a crowded train, I wonder "Why?".