Hacker News Reader

Comment by rolleiflex | Hacker News Reader

Same in Turkey, and I presume through most of continental Europe. Most stop signs were removed in late 90s and converted into either implicit yields (i.e. nothing, ‘don’t be stupid’ rule) or traffic lights. Right now they’re trialling allowing California style allowed right turn at red lights.

View on HN

> Right now they're trialling allowing California style allowed right turn at red lights.

Sounds unwise - this is a fundamentally unsafe policy [1], and more people will die if it's implemented.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002243...

Makes sense outside cities. Not so great in cities.

> California style allowed right turn at red lights.

How are these different from other 'right turns on red' in the US ?

I find turning on red to be a pretty bad idea, because Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians. I think a majority of pedestrian accidents occurs on turn on reds/stops .

"Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians"

Rarely is being heavily abused in this statement. It's just not true. Otherwise pedestrian fatalities would be vastly higher than they are. Additionally, regional driving habits differ drastically. People in Colorado and California drive far more aggressively than they do in Iowa or even more densely populated areas on the east coast, where policing is far more rigorous.

I live in suburbia where there are few pedestrians. When I am out running, I would guesstimate that only about 20% of drivers actually stop before turning right on red. About 90% of drivers, even the ones that stopped, also never even glance in the direction they are turning, looking only for traffic coming from the left. By the time they have starting looking right, they have already crossed through the crosswalk.

The only reason there aren't more injuries to pedestrians is that there aren't very many to begin with and those that are on foot operate on the assumption that every driver is out to kill them.

>I find turning on red to be a pretty bad idea, because Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians. I think a majority of pedestrian accidents occurs on turn on reds/stops.

Right on red is indeed unsafe: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002243...

The US, for various reasons that primarily relate to privatized healthcare and a proliferation of lawyers, had absurdly high rates of lawsuits and liability around driving. Most road signs here are excessive for the purposes of making it as straightforward as possible to assign liability to a driver in the event of an acccident.

A prime example of this is the "No U-Turn" signs all over the US. People make U-turns at these spots all the time. The sign is really just there to ensure that any accident resulting from said U-turn is always, no matter what, the turner's fault in a legal sense.

I'd be far happier if we were just allowed to ignore the signs and have strict liability for the consequences if we screw up doing so. Being subject to fines and harassment by law enforcement is what I don't like.

Statistically 80% (might have been even higher I can't find the source right now) of drivers consuders themselves above average.

a) That's possible depending on how you quantify ability because average is influenced by outliers.

b) Is that supposed to be a rebuttal or something? I think "do whatever but strict liability if you F up" would be fine even for average and below average drivers. That's mostly how things already work in practice.

and depending on the distribution, they might be right!

Good thing they didn't say the rule should be for above average drivers only?

Being allowed to turn right on red is the law in every US state. The only real exception is that it's banned in a few downtowns and, obviously, wherever a sign says otherwise.

One counterexample, right turn on red is not allowed anywhere in any borough of NYC. And outer Queens/Brooklyn/Staten Island are indistinguishable (to me) from the rest of Long Island (suburb). (i.e. not just downtown/busy areas of NYC)

Yes, NYC is not just pragmatically anti-car (which to some extent it needs to be), it is also ideologically anti-car, and that manifests in stupid rules like that.

NYC has free parking in every borough which is fairly pro-car in my (admittedly probably anti-car) circles.

The most expensive real estate per sq foot in the world and they allow people to store personal cars for free on the street. Ludicrous

That's not a stupid rule. Right-on-red is quite unsafe for pedestrians.

Right turn on red really doesn't belong anywhere where people could be on the street. Drivers turning red will often pull forward into the crosswalk and there may be a walk signal.

How is that any different from a right turn on green where there may be a walk signal?

In a right turn on green scenario, the driver mainly needs to be looking for pedestrians crossing and they will be crossing a different direction. In a right turn on red, their primary focus is on cars, limiting their attention on pedestrians. It also encourages creeping out into the crosswalk, blocking people from crossing on a signal.

That makes sense. Being European I’m often annoyed at not being allowed to turn right on red. Allowing it at non-pedestrian intersections would perhaps be a fair compromise.

Blows my mind you’d both tell a pedestrian to cross and also allow a car to drive through at the same time.

So you'd have every intersection come to a complete stop in all directions for pedestrian crossings? New York would come to a complete standstill.

I mean, only 15% of Manhattan population owns a car.

And thus many of them rely on the cross town busses. Which would be brought to a stop if what you propose was implemented.

Right on red is a bizarre murderous idea - why let cars cross a pedestrians' right of way?

I’m not a huge fan of right-turn-on-red but one thing I don’t often seen brought up is that right-turn-on-green is problematic as well, for this very reason. When your light (to go forward) turns green, the pedestrian crossing on your right often also turns green, which means there are now pedestrians trying to cross your path. It’s definitely better because you’re only have to focus on pedestrians and not traffic, but “green=go” is a thing that has led several cars to almost hit me at street crossings.

Better than right turn on green, where the same thing occurs. With right turn on red, cars must stop before turning. Furthermore, cars are not permitted to turn if there are pedestrians crossing.

How is that California-style? That's the general rule in USA/Canada (not sure about Mexico). Some dense cities like New York and Montreal forbid right-turns on red city-wide, but those are the exception.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com