265
submitted 1 year ago by GiddyGap@lemm.ee to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] atx_aquarian@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago

Lights have to get smarter. Right on red is half the traffic flow in my area.* I always see so many situations where a green turn arrow would be appropriate, and yet the intersection is relying on the right-on-red rule instead, causing each car to pause when it should be flowing through. And even more situations where a light always stops the majority direction of traffic on what must be a fixed timer that poorly syncs with some upstream lights, because it always seems to turn red as a clump of cars arrives, even when there's almost always no cross traffic. Maybe right on red is more dangerous in some places, and we can get rid of it, but we have to replace it with some actual civil engineering instead of making traffic even worse.

*±100% margin of error, sample size 1

How the hell did you get 0.5 cars going right on red? Did a car just plow through multiple houses between going straight and turning right at an intersection?

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

Your -2 comment score leads me to believe some people didn't get your joke. I'll explain it, which we all know will make it funnier.

The previous comment mentioned their observation of half of the traffic moving through right on red and, later in parentheses, said this was based on n=1, i.e., based on the observation of a single vehicle. I'm 100% certain that was a joke.

The follow-up comment was also certainly a joke. They're pointing out that the commenter observed one car and then made the claim half of cars use right on red, so they're jokingly asking how exactly half of one car made it through.

Get it? Now stop downvoting the dude, stats are great, stats dad jokes are better.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Its acting like both a wave and a particle

And today I learned that people should joke around more with statistics.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, but with a ±100% margin of error, that means right on red traffic could be anywhere between 0 and 100%. I think it's a safe assumption that with n=1 it's one of those extremes, not fractional cars.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fugacity@kbin.social 46 points 1 year ago

Let me preface that I think using vehicles as a primary source of transportation inherently scales poorly, and you can easily argue this by looking at how much a road costs versus a rail and how much mass you need to move per person on car versus train.

That being said, I really hate this article because it relies on anecdotes from various people and opinions without making any effort at citing relevant statistics. It literally cites the TOTAL number of pedestrian deaths to vehicles in 2022. I tried to find some statistics on right turn on red light, but all I could find were 20 year old or older studies, most of which actually concluded that right turn on red doesn't really account for a large number of pedestrian injuries and deaths. Like this one, for instance, which claims that right turning on green can also result in pedestrian accidents which could result in much more severe injuries (I can see how this might be true but there's no evidence to back this up.)

It's interesting for me to look at this from a utilitarian perspective: Surely there is a tradeoff between the amount of time wasted due to traffic increase due to right turn on red, and the time equivalent to the amount of lives lost due to RTOR (assuming RTOR results in more deaths). This of course is an incomplete/flawed way to look at things as we don't give highway collision motorists the death penalty for causing huge traffic blocks; iirc though it is how a lot of safety studies are done (look into how the statistical value of a human life is determined from highway transport administrations).

I would really appreciate if someone could chime in with some actual stats and numbers (though I doubt they're readily available) about the topic, rather than some anecdotal comments. I'm not a fan of symbolic legislation that doesn't provide real benefit (think plastic straws bullshit), and I would like to see a convincing take on whether or not this is that.

[-] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

I don't have stats this is pure anecdotal. My experience in Seattle is that I'm overwhelmingly almost hit by cars when we're both going the same direction and they're turning right on green. Not just compared to right on red but all situations where they almost get me. I'd also love real stats on the matter though

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Having the green light coincide with a walk signal is basically coaxing drivers to strike pedestrians. In crowded parts of a city with idiot drivers behind me, I've actually had people try to pass me on the right (and drive into pedestrians) after laying on their horns while I was making a right because I was properly waiting for pedestrians to clear the intersection first.

It's bizarre that they set the traffic up this way. They should make a right arrow and have it red, or do pedestrian traffic while the red's still on or something. But a green light with a walk signal is very stupid.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Wahots@pawb.social 17 points 1 year ago

Changing traffic laws will have some effect, but really we should be working on more lightrail and more high-speed trainsets. It will take time for housing and business to rebuild around stations, but it will simultaneously keep people safer, alleviate traffic, and reduce emissions. Nothing more satisfying than flying by traffic for less than the price a gallon of gas, especially if you live a decent distance from work or school too.

[-] corey389@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm My State when the lights turn green to take a Right the pedestrian light also gives the pedestrians the green light to cross. So we have cars turning right while pedestrians are crossing. How much safer is that. At least now when you take it right on red the pedestrians don't have the right to cross.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Drusas@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Right on red also causes terrible traffic problems at busy intersections as people who don't have the right of way turn right while people who do have right of way get stuck waiting to turn left or are forced to block the intersection.

I wish my city would get rid of it, at least in downtown areas where traffic is a problem and a lot of pedestrians are walking around.

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

Those people are driving improperly. You're supposed to only proceed through the intersection if it's clear, both of oncoming traffic and of traffic that might cause you to block the intersection.

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Yes, but that's how people operate in reality.

[-] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I think the point is that trying to ban right on red will change nothing because they will still just drive incorrectly turning right even if they shouldn't they already weren't supposed to be turning

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In general, urban signal-controlled intersections are just the traffic engineers screaming "I've tried nothing and am all out of ideas."

We use them pretty much by default in the US, but most urban areas should be vastly cutting back on them. All-way stops and, of course, roundabouts are both provably FAR safer often with no impact or a positive impact to overall congestion. Plus, pretty universally much cheaper to build and maintain.

Signal-controlled designs should be reserved for intersections where it is literally not possible to fit a more passive design while maintaining sight distances or for places where truly huge traffic volumes are involved (a significant interchange) where no other traffic flow redesign is possible.

Using traffic lights is ALL about increasing level of service. Which is just code for "The city values keeping more cars moving faster over both safety and financial responsibility."

All that to say, I bet a lot of the intersections that would be most annoying without right on red... don't really need to have lights controlling traffic flow in them at all.

[-] Redscare867@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Aren’t roundabouts typically significantly larger than an equivalent intersection with traffic lights? If so I’m not sure that’s what we need in urban areas. We already give up so much public space to automobiles. There’s also the question of where does that additional space even come from? Do we bulldoze more homes? To me it seems real solution is to move away from personal vehicles in urban areas. Anything else is just trying to justify an inefficient and unsustainable lifestyle.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

They tend to be significantly larger in new construction because small ones don't really cost a lot less than big ones and most designs prefer to do something nice with the landscaping. Plus, bigger ones flow better. But you can retrofit ones that aren't vastly larger in size.

All of this is equally true of a road with bike lanes vs one without them... yet cities always seem to be able to find the space, typically by dieting the road a bit. There's typically lots of options. Narrow lanes, reduce lanes, eliminate some/all on-street parking, cannibalize the median, etc..

Neighborhood traffic circles are a pretty easy drop-in replacement for most of the worst-offender small intersections, too, and they can be achieved with as little as painted lines.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

USA has ass-backwards system for getting drivers license. At least from I could find online. You get learners permit after passing written exam. That's not nearly enough. In my country you have to attend 20 hours (optional depending on existing licenses) of theory, then pass theoretical exam. Then you have a driving instructor assigned to you for total 40h (or 20h depending on existing licenses) in 1h sessions. You first start training court where you train to start, stop, turn and other driving maneuvers. When instructor deems you ready for traffic only then you get to drive with them in the car and having dual controls for the vehicle. Only when instructor deems you ready you are allowed to take the test for getting the license. And even on the test you first have to pass training court before you are allowed to enter traffic.

By the time you got learners permit you have at least 40h of driving in traffic which is significantly better than just passing written exam.

In my eyes, law is not the problem but experience and people paying attention. Phones, doing makeup, eating food and other things should be forbidden in car because it distracts you too much.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

The US is too car-dependent to make a drivers license harder or more expensive to get. Less safety is the price we pay.

Yep, and we are generally not willing (as a society) to pay decent wages for things like teachers, so getting drivers ed teachers for all student drivers would be not possible. Private lessons would work but that would make it unavailable to a lot of less affluent people.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] tiredofsametab@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

It all depends upon state. I think the learners permit requires another licensed, adult driver to be in the vehicle and has other restrictions.

That said, I'm with you. I originally learned to drive in rural Ohio. I moved to Japan and finally decided to get my license. Since my Ohio license expired, I had to start from zero. I spent two weeks knocking it out at a training camp (there's a restriction on the number of hours of practical training per day, so there was a fair amount of free time). First, had to pass some basic checks. They did start practical on the first or second day on their closed course. There's a mid-point test that one must pass before being able to go out on the roads. There's a number of hours more of this and then two final tests (course and driving).

I got my mid-sized motorcycle license this year and that was also a number of hours (I want to say 17 altogether since I had a regular car license), though exclusively on the closed course.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TheSanSabaSongbird 6 points 1 year ago

There are at least 50 different systems for getting a driver's license in the US since each state issues its own license. Some states are far more rigorous than others. My home state has a system similar to what you describe only it includes an additional 40 hours driving with another licensed adult, in addition to the hours spent driving with a certified instructor and the classroom hours.

The state I live in now? Not so much. They basically just give out licenses to anyone who shows up, pays the fee and can show that they know what the different pedals do. Unfortunately this produces terrible drivers, as you would expect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Sounds like Revenue Generation to me. Some out of town driver doesn't know about the local traffic law, gets cited for breaking it, and loses if they fight it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Nougat@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Why not enforce the "pedestrians have the right of way" thing?

[-] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The point is that people driving don't expect to see them, thus have trouble seeing them.

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

We've had right on red for a long time, maybe the cars (trucks) you can't see out of are the problem.

[-] PriceIsWrong@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

Drivers are becoming hostile and idiotic by the day. What you'll also notice is when it is green, they will stop instead.

Need higher or more severe penalties if this is to save lives

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

It's banned in NYC but not enforced, so it may as well be legal. Then again, barreling through a red light also isn't enforced.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

NYC has traffic laws? I thought the only rule was to survive

[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

No you're basically right. Our cops only care about catching subway toll jumpers

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi 10 points 1 year ago

We don't have right on red in europe. Can't imagine crossing the road to a median with it

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Number1SummerJam@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

They should ban slip lanes too

[-] tiredofsametab@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

I was in the US a bit over a month ago. Started to cross when the walk signal became green. A driver went into the crosswalk we were stepping into, only looking left and never coming to a stop until she saw the guy crossing from the other side. She never saw us once and nearly ran us over. We don't have the equivalent here (left on red) in Japan and we do fine. Get rid of it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Uhh not by default! The pedestrian crosswalks need to be hooked to the light, and timed better. When a pedestrian needs to cross (with the button), then no right on red—after the cars go. That way there isn’t a rush by anyone.

[-] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Drivers should not have the option to decide for themselves when they think it’s safe

I hate this sentiment. They don't want people to think for themselves.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Think they mean that most people don't have the necessary knowledge to determine whether a specific action or inaction is safe. Which is absolutely true.

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

I disagree. More often than not, people make the safe decision.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think that's true at all and if it was we would have a way bigger problem to solve

[-] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

This seems weird. Do you guys not have arrows for turning traffic? Just one set of solid lights??

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 9 points 1 year ago

Left arrows are pretty common. Right arrows are extremely rare.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
265 points (95.2% liked)

News

23305 readers
3619 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