this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
142 points (66.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

9666 readers
82 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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.

Posting Guidelines

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:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mannivu@feddit.it 77 points 11 months ago (17 children)

I'm from Italy and the first time we had a family vacation in the US we were honked a lot because we would stop at red lights. Only after 3 days we discovered that there's the "turn-on-red" rule and we were confused: if it's red, why can you turn?

In Italy (but I guess in all Europe works like this) we have a different approach on these situations: if the driver is at a traffic light and can make a turn, but it could be unsafe, the light turns into a blinking yellow light, so that the driver know that it must check well before going on.

[–] Itsamelemmy@lemmy.zip 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

US has the blinking yellow as well, but usually only in the left turn lane. Which just means yield to oncoming, go if it's safe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheWoozy@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

I remember when right on red was first implemented. The purpose was to save on fuel during the energy crisis back in the 70s/80s. It's saves some huge amount of green house gasses. A lot of localities spent a fortune on "no right on red" signs.

Theoretically, right on red is a good thing, but theoretically, everybody follows the rules and nobody makes mistakes.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 67 points 11 months ago (21 children)

Other things they need to ban in driving:

Shitheads who refuse to use turn signals. Not shoulder checking. Not Leaving a gap. leaving your high beams on. Not Getting to the side for emergency vehicles. Doing multiple lane changes all at once.

These are already not legal but too many drivers do this shit. No one is reinforcing it.

Looking for excuses to Turn off your brain just cuz your foot is on the gas pedal should be when you have your licence taken away.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I was recently proposing regular drivers re-tests as a solution.

My teen has already developed some bad driving habits, like we all do, and is focused on not doing them during his upcoming driving test. For example, what if he fails for driving a little too fast?

Similarly, maybe if people had to think about their bad driving habits and risked losing their license if they slipped back into them, maybe it would help reinforce safer havits

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The idea someone gets lisenced once and never retests for decades is absurd. Road rules, car technology, bad habits, and health issues all may change drastically over that time period. Regular retesting would be expensive but should be done. Make the drivers pay for it and use it to reduce the subsidizing of roads.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Every renewal should be a retest with increasing frequency after 55.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Everyone is blaming older people, yet as I’ve seen older people approach the point where they should no longer drive, they limit themselves before anyone else does. That older neighbor driving to church once a week may be slow but they’ll probably be ok.

Meanwhile, it’s the people who have no physical/mental impairment who blow through stop signs and rights on red, who speed excessively, who drive drunk, who text and drive, who drive trucks bigger than they can keep in the lane, who can’t park between the lines, who rage drive ……. There are a lot of dangerous drivers who have nothing to do with being elderly, and many of these behaviors are more likely to cause injury/death

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 49 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I bike whenever possible so I drive too, so I've seen both sides of this coin.

  1. Too many rubbish motorists get impatient while driving. Apparently waiting ten seconds is too big an ask for them. I've stopped at intersections waiting to turn right and idiots behind me honk because they didn't see the "NO TURN ON RED" sign.
  2. There is an intersection where there are two roads crossing at right angles—an ordinary intersection, but one of the roads leading into it has a steep slope, so when I go down that slope on a bike to catch a green light, I end up going pretty fast. The problem is that motor traffic turning right often fails to give way to me (or others) in the bike lane going straight forward. This leads to an unusually high number of collisions and near-collisions, luckily none leading to serious injury—yet. This is in a college campus so motor traffic is slow.
[–] yardy_sardley@lemmy.ca 23 points 11 months ago

In my city there is a new light rail/tram line that, unlike all the previous lines, doesn't have arms at any of the level crossings. So right turns on red have been disallowed along the line so drivers don't unwittingly turn in front of a train.

Turns out drivers tend to have poor situational awareness and will ignore rules that seem mildly inconvenient. The number of cars that have turned directly into the side of a train is both hysterical and alarming.

So yeah, it would be much safer if we disallowed rights on red as a general rule, and had specific exceptions in places where an unaware or impatient driver won't be putting anyone's life at risk.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Almost like bikes and cars should not be forced to share the same infrastructure.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 45 points 10 months ago (4 children)

People don't pay attention at crossings where you're not allowed to make a right on red, either. The problem isn't the rule; it's people not actually looking where they are moving.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Drivers don't even stop until they've completely crossed the crosswalk. Banning right on red only works if steel barriers emerge from the ground to protect crossers because that will actually make cars stop at the stop line.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 15 points 10 months ago

I'm going to put some of the blame on whatever department it is that handles the municipal gardening. The highway department designs and builds an intersection, then in comes the state HOA who says "Big spherical bush right here at the apex of the corner. S'purty." "But now driver's can't see oncoming traffi-" "I SAID S'PURTY!!!1!"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] duffman@lemmy.world 38 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Pedestrian scramble is probably more appropriate than banning right on red, and is proven to greatly reduce accidents. No need to have cars sitting idling longer than needed and adding to congestion. Ive also worked in a downtown area where pedestrian traffic could get so heavy cars couldn't turn right on green.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What's pedestrian scramble?

[–] duffman@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Dedicated cycle for pedestrians, all way crossing so they can cross diagonally too. It separates cars and pedestrians completely.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SasquatchBanana@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

There's a famous intersection in Tokyo that does shows this. I wouldn't be surprised you haven't seen this in some form or another.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Meh, shits actually quite rare. https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/traftech/1995/tt086.htm

When folks are talking to you in percentages and avoid absolutes you can assume they are massaging the message to be more palatable to the intended audience.

[–] my_hat_stinks@programming.dev 16 points 11 months ago (41 children)

Hate to break it to you but that link is talking in percentages. The only absolute number the give is number of fatalities, everything else is a percentage. Specifically, it claims that because turning right on red represents a small % of overall injuries from all traffic it's not unsafe. That's not an exaggeration, it's literally the conclusion they give.

In conclusion, there are a relatively small number of deaths and injuries each year caused by right-turn-on-red crashes. These represent a very small percentage of all crashes, deaths, and injuries. Because the number of crashes due to right-turn-on-red is small, the impact on traffic safety, therefore, has also been small. Insufficient data exist to analyze left turn on red.

A bullet to the arm is safer than a bullet to the head but that doesn't make it safe.

[–] hemmes@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Approximately 84 fatal crashes occurred per year during the 1982-1992 time period involving a right-turning vehicle at an intersection where RTOR is permitted. During this same time period there were 485,104 fatalities.

Thus, less than 0.2 percent of all fatalities involved a right-turning vehicle maneuver at an intersection where RTOR is permitted. FARS, however, does not discern whether the traffic signal was red. Therefore, the actual number of fatal RTOR crashes is somewhere between zero and 84 and may be closer to zero than 84.

They literally use numbers in their report.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (40 replies)
[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (26 children)

Accidents are rare, sure, and fatalities are rare because the relatively low speed impact. We can nevertheless aspire to create more inclusive infrastructure where pedestrians and cyclists can feel a sense of belonging. The car-centric roads we have in the US today could be better for everyone.

load more comments (26 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago (11 children)

What's the fatality rate for right-on-green? That scenario always seems more dangerous to me than right-on-red unless you have a light where pedestrians get a cycle to themselves. You have the same danger with not seeing a pedestrian, but now you aren't even supposed to stop first, just make the check and decision while moving.

[–] Magiccupcake@startrek.website 11 points 11 months ago

Drivers don't t have to look left on right in green, so should naturally look in the direction they're going, and thus see pedestrians and cyclists.

They also have time to spot them while waiting.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 21 points 11 months ago

Man, this one is tough. I enjoy not having to wait, but I've experienced this cognitive overload both as a driver getting surprised then aborting my turn abruptly and as a pedestrian when the driver is too busy watching traffic to look at me, making me nervous about stepping into the crosswalk.

I'm not surprised to read this rule causes accidents.

[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Considering my sister just got hit because of a right on red while she was crossing an intersection... yeah its just a mess.

She's okay ish. Very bruised. Lucky nothing else happened.

Dude hit and ran.

Very frustrating.

[–] TooLazyDidntName@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe a good starting point in the US would be to ban it in cities or ban it anywhere there's a side walk / bike lane? That way you might avoid a lot of the hicks who would inevideably be super against this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

"The driver inches into the crosswalk, watching the oncoming traffic to his left and waiting for a gap to appear. He finally spots one and accelerates into the turn"

Um, what? There are cars zooming across the crosswalk, which definitely wouldn't have a crossing signal. In this imaginary scenario, a pedestrian is trying to sprint across an intersection against a crossing signal.

There are enough horrific traffic situations created by cars and urban congestion, do we really need to make up a stupid and unlikely one where the pedestrian is the idiot? If anything, this article should be against right on green. Good luck with that.

[–] schrodingers_dinger@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago (6 children)

I think the article means that a pedestrian is trying to cross in front of the turning car where the pedestrian does have right of way, so perpendicular to the turning car and parallel with the traffic which has the green light and walk signal.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›