A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
Apparently pedestrians should take personal responsibility but not drivers
or look at the road, adapt your speed to not run over anything, pedestrians included
people in cars assume that it's the others that have to be careful and not the person driving one tonne of metal on wheels....
In France, and probably most countries in the world, pedestrians are priority on crosswalk (without lights): it's just like a Yield the right-of-way intersection when you can engage only if it's free, and therefore have to slow down.
But we were taught as kids to thank drivers for stopping when it's actually the law, by this logic I should thank people for stopping at stop signs, red light and stuffs...
My youngest and I have done a lot of walking through our town the last few summers and any close calls were mostly
As much as I like this convention, I have twice seen it almost cause the car I was in (not driving) to strike a pedestrian. I think maybe we should get rid of it. If we want to allow right turns into sparse/nonexistent cross traffic, we need a signal that says "possible cross traffic, but no pedestrian parallel traffic".
I always understood “right on red” to be “after coming to a full stop”. I don’t remember learning of that to be changed but when I wrote that in an earlier thread, a lot of lemmings jumped on that as false. Assuming it’s the law, I’ve never seen it enforced. However whether it’s law or not, the reality is drivers don’t stop. That’s what makes it dangerous. If they did, pedestrian and cyclist injuries would go way down.
While there’s an argument for changing the law if necessary or enforcing it if it does say to stop, that’s not going to work. Drivers will not give up their bad habits based on targeted enforcement.
There are cities that ban the practice. hallelujah! That’s the answer. “Right on red” was passed in a more car-centric time where much higher injuries and deaths were accepted, and road designers didn’t believe in roundabouts. It’s not ok. It has to go.
Edit: yes, Wikipedia confirms a full stop is legally required in us and Canada. Too bad drivers don’t seem to know that
In one of my incidents, the cabbie did not come to a full stop. In the other of my incidents, the friend had come to a full stop, but she did not notice the pedestrian traffic (which, at the time, wasn't common [and without signal] at that intersection).
In any case, yeah, "right on red" should be done away with and we can deal with any negative effects (of not having it) better than we can deal with dead or injured pedestrians / cyclists.
Really feels like it these days.
People seem really annoyed whenever they have to stop at a stop sign for me instead of being able to treat it more like a speed bump