News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Right on Red

Started by RobbieL2415, April 14, 2016, 02:54:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AlexandriaVA

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Let me put it another way.

Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?

The cyclists certainly seem to think they have that right and that pedestrians who have the "walk" sign are supposed to stay out of their way.....

I'm more interested in the legal justification behind allowing the motorist to exercise judgement when making a RTOR, but not to extend the same privileges for situations concerning LTOR or Straight-on-Red. What's the fundamental difference, after all?


jeffandnicole

Quote from: empirestate on April 15, 2016, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 11:19:00 PM
My initial question was did people turn right on red even though it was illegal in in some states until the 70s?

Just bumping this, since I'd also be curious to know the answer.


Since those people will now be in their mid-upper 50's at the youngest, I doubt we're going to hear from many. 

I'm sure, like with anything, there were a few people that did the illegal maneuver. 

kphoger

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Let me put it another way.

Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?

The cyclists certainly seem to think they have that right and that pedestrians who have the "walk" sign are supposed to stay out of their way.....

I'm more interested in the legal justification behind allowing the motorist to exercise judgement when making a RTOR, but not to extend the same privileges for situations concerning LTOR or Straight-on-Red. What's the fundamental difference, after all?

I'm assuming that, for the most part, LTOR is a situation that nobody in those states really though about to include in the vehicle code.  If nobody thought to include it, then only RTOR would be specifically mentioned in the code.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

AlexandriaVA

The way I see if, if you can trust the motorist to properly judge when it is safe to execute a right turn on red, I don't know what's fundamentally different about allowing the motorist to decide to make the other maneuver (left on red, and straight on red).

noelbotevera

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2016, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 14, 2016, 09:19:29 PM
PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.
By "changed to" do you mean "allowed"?  I've lived in the Keystone State for nearly 26 years and RTOR has always been allowed unless signed to the contrary.  I have a 1990-91 Driver's Manual at home and can verify.
Yes, I meant "allowed". Was the RTOR limited to the entire state or just the Philadelphia metro area only?

kphoger

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 04:11:04 PM
The way I see if, if you can trust the motorist to properly judge when it is safe to execute a right turn on red, I don't know what's fundamentally different about allowing the motorist to decide to make the other maneuver (left on red, and straight on red).

There may not be anything "fundamentally different", except perhaps other drivers' expectations due to unfamiliarity.  But that's a separate issue from something being specifically spelled out in the vehicle code.  Generally, only right turns on red are permitted, whereas left turns on red are a similar situation that most people never even really think about being similar.  Therefore, a lot of vehicle codes don't address the situation–defaulting instead to other restrictions against turning left on red, which were actually intended to address normal red balls at two-way traffic situations.

In other words, does the law ever actually specifically prohibit left turn on red between one-way streets?  I've never seen that.  All I've seen in code is specifically permitting it or not specifically addressing it.

Apart from a junction of one-way streets, however–and I realize now this is what you're talking about–there is a fundamental difference.  RTOR at a junction of two-way streets only puts one traffic lane in jeopardy:  the nearest lane on the cross-street (the one you're turning into).  LTOR at a junction of two-way streets, however, puts at least three lanes in jeopardy:  opposing traffic (which you're crossing), the nearest lane of the cross-street (which you're also crossing), and the nearest lane on the other side of the cross-street (the one you're turning into).  That's a lot more dangerous.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

RobbieL2415

I wish turning/straight on red was legal during overnight hours, except where otherwise posted.  Waiting for "traffic" when it's 2 in the morning is a fool's errand.

AlexandriaVA

Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2016, 04:30:16 PM
Apart from a junction of one-way streets, however–and I realize now this is what you're talking about–there is a fundamental difference.  RTOR at a junction of two-way streets only puts one traffic lane in jeopardy:  the nearest lane on the cross-street (the one you're turning into).  LTOR at a junction of two-way streets, however, puts at least three lanes in jeopardy:  opposing traffic (which you're crossing), the nearest lane of the cross-street (which you're also crossing), and the nearest lane on the other side of the cross-street (the one you're turning into).  That's a lot more dangerous.

But pro-RTOR people have already concluded that drivers are competent at assessing when it is safe to go. If we've already established that people are capable of deciding when it is safe to RTOR, why make the other maneuvers any different?

jeffandnicole

Quote from: noelbotevera on April 15, 2016, 04:15:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2016, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 14, 2016, 09:19:29 PM
PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.
By "changed to" do you mean "allowed"?  I've lived in the Keystone State for nearly 26 years and RTOR has always been allowed unless signed to the contrary.  I have a 1990-91 Driver's Manual at home and can verify.
Yes, I meant "allowed". Was the RTOR limited to the entire state or just the Philadelphia metro area only?

Is this a serious question? Again, since 1978. At minimum.

kphoger

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2016, 04:30:16 PM
Apart from a junction of one-way streets, however–and I realize now this is what you're talking about–there is a fundamental difference.  RTOR at a junction of two-way streets only puts one traffic lane in jeopardy:  the nearest lane on the cross-street (the one you're turning into).  LTOR at a junction of two-way streets, however, puts at least three lanes in jeopardy:  opposing traffic (which you're crossing), the nearest lane of the cross-street (which you're also crossing), and the nearest lane on the other side of the cross-street (the one you're turning into).  That's a lot more dangerous.

But pro-RTOR people have already concluded that drivers are competent at assessing when it is safe to go. If we've already established that people are capable of deciding when it is safe to RTOR, why make the other maneuvers any different?

Pro-RTOR people have concluded that drivers are competent at assessing when it is safe to go when there is only one lane of traffic about which they have to make that decision.  Other maneuvers are not the same situation; you are comparing apples to oranges.  As it is, RTOR functions basically the same as a slip with a Yield sign, except without the slip and requiring a full stop instead.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Brandon

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 03:20:41 PM
I'm just curious why RTOR is safe and LTOR isn't.

It is (when not crossing oncoming traffic), and some states *GASP* even allow it from a two-way to a one-way street or freeway entrance ramp.

Please, stop going all Godwin-esque on this stuff.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

jakeroot

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 11:19:00 PM
My initial question was did people turn right on red even though it was illegal in in some states until the 70s?

According to my grandfather, who is 76...

Quote from: iMessage
For the most part, I don't think they did but you know some people are just born law breakers. Lol

I'm not sure A) how good his memory is, nor B) how long Washington has permitted right turns on red (though its been since at least 1975: http://goo.gl/WfhGGT -- note that this amendment added a whole section on red arrows, defining a left or right turn on a red arrow as legal for the first time). But I get the feeling that most people waited, with some apparently predicting the future, turning on red anyways.

vdeane

To be honest, I'm not against the idea of being able to go straight or turn left on red if there's no traffic around.  Not as uncommon a situation and NE2 has previously suggested the last time I brought it up, by the way.  I can think of two intersections (and one midblock pedestrian crossing where the light forces people to stop for far longer than the pedestrian would be anywhere near their vehicle) near home where I often have this situation (one of which is is extremely rare to encounter another car; I suspect the light is there for speed control).  Obviously such cases are much fewer in number than right on red, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and it's nothing that cyclists aren't already trying to get special privileges for.

As for the DUI comparison, even on an empty road, one could veer off the road and hit a pedestrian or damage someone's property.  And who's to say that the road is empty?  If the one time there's another car is the one time the drunk driver couldn't keep control of the vehicle, game over.  My opposition to driving drunk isn't because it's illegal (though I believe that something being illegal in and of itself is a rather stupid reason to be against something; whether something is bad or not depends on its intentional and unintentional consequences on others; the law, if implemented properly, is a guide as to what is generally right and what is generally wrong, and IMO common sense should always come first) - it's because it's dangerous to others (and not, I don't favor a "zero tolerance" limit of  0.00% for anyone, under 21 or not, though I'm open to lowering it to 0.05% as people are impaired, even if they don't know it, at that level; like I said before, though, I AM against checkpoint enforcement).

As for seatbelts, they do protect others.  In the event of an accident, people not wearing seatbelts become projectiles that can severely injure or kill passengers or even people in other vehicles.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Let me put it another way.

Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?

The cyclists certainly seem to think they have that right and that pedestrians who have the "walk" sign are supposed to stay out of their way.....

I'm more interested in the legal justification behind allowing the motorist to exercise judgement when making a RTOR, but not to extend the same privileges for situations concerning LTOR or Straight-on-Red. What's the fundamental difference, after all?
And I'm interested in the fact that you ducked the question.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

1995hoo

#63
I kind of think something vdeane said earlier in the thread sums it up: Why should we cater to the lowest common denominator? What AlexandriaVA seems to consider to be horrible–a situation where the rule might seem at first blush to vary and where drivers are expected to know what to do and to do it–is rather similar to how it is in Europe, where there are a lot more yields (or "give-ways") and way fewer annoying stop signs and the like. I always find it very refreshing to drive there, though of course turns on red are generally prohibited. There's no reason other than stupid tradition and fear for the American resistance to more permissive signage. "You might have to stop sometime, so we'll require you to stop every time." A Russian of my acquaintance once commented to me that most Americans have no clue what to do unless there's a sign. He's right. It's sad.

BTW, left on red (from a one-way to another one-way) is legal in Virginia, and I can think of several places in Alexandria where it's available. I'm the only person I ever see doing it and I'd wager the other drivers all think I'm running the red lights when I do it.


(BTW, I say "seem at first blush to vary" because the give-way rule is almost always the same, except in France where roundabouts are exceptions to the normal priorité rule, but you just don't have the same ubiquity of all-way stops or the like that you do in the US, so to an American it may feel less predictable until you're used to it.)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

jakeroot

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 07:49:52 PM
BTW, left on red (from a one-way to another one-way) is legal in Virginia, and I can think of several places in Alexandria where it's available. I'm the only person I ever see doing it and I'd wager the other drivers all think I'm running the red lights when I do it.

Gripping! I would have thought that left turns on red from one-way roads to other one-way roads would have been practiced more. Here in the Seattle area, there aren't a lot of one-way roads outside of the CBD, but LTOR is practiced often downtown. Interestingly (though not all that surprising), left turns on red from two-way to one-way roads is seldom practiced. In downtown areas, I've witnessed it occasionally. But I am 100% certain that I'm the only person to ever turn left on red at this light: https://goo.gl/sbVOSA

1995hoo

I think people here simply don't know it's legal. (Across the river in DC it isn't.)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Duke87

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:40:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 02:33:55 PM
Driving while impaired is dangerous no matter where one is driving.  Doesn't matter if it's rural or not.

But you already established that rules should be flexible based on local conditions and such. If you're the only one on a dirt road, who are you harming by driving drunk?

Even if rules are flexible based on local conditions, alcohol isn't. A driver can quite reasonably turn right on red and one signal and then be prohibited from doing so at the next, depending on the conditions at each intersection. But a driver who's drunk on a dirt road cannot suddenly stop being drunk when they turn off of it onto a more major road.

And if their entire trip is on a dirt road, well, probably not may cops patrolling it so their behavior in that case is de facto legal due to lack of enforcement.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 15, 2016, 04:39:24 PM
I wish turning/straight on red was legal during overnight hours, except where otherwise posted.  Waiting for "traffic" when it's 2 in the morning is a fool's errand.

This is an artificial problem manufactured by boneheadded jurisdictions insisting on running their signals 24/7 rather than putting them in flash mode during hours when they are not needed.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2016, 04:30:16 PM
Apart from a junction of one-way streets, however–and I realize now this is what you're talking about–there is a fundamental difference.  RTOR at a junction of two-way streets only puts one traffic lane in jeopardy:  the nearest lane on the cross-street (the one you're turning into).  LTOR at a junction of two-way streets, however, puts at least three lanes in jeopardy:  opposing traffic (which you're crossing), the nearest lane of the cross-street (which you're also crossing), and the nearest lane on the other side of the cross-street (the one you're turning into).  That's a lot more dangerous.

But pro-RTOR people have already concluded that drivers are competent at assessing when it is safe to go. If we've already established that people are capable of deciding when it is safe to RTOR, why make the other maneuvers any different?

Because it's not just that the other maneuvers are more dangerous, they are also much more difficult to asses the safety of on the fly.

If you were looking at me waiting for me to throw a rubber ball at you, you'd probably be pretty good at getting out of the way when I did. But if two people on opposite sides of you were simultaneously preparing to throw balls at you, how good would you be at successfully dodging both of them?

This is the same as the difference between right on red and straight or left on red (onto a two way street). One requires that you avoid crashing into traffic coming from one direction. The other requires that you simultaneously avoid crashing into traffic coming from two opposite directions.

On the other hand this is also why prohibiting right on red in places where there is a reasonable likelihood of pedestrians being present makes sense: needing to ensure that there is no traffic approaching from the left and no pedestrians in the crosswalk to the right creates a similar situation to why we don't allow straight on red, because you need to avoid conflicting movements from two opposite sides.

Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 07:34:11 PM
As for seatbelts, they do protect others.  In the event of an accident, people not wearing seatbelts become projectiles that can severely injure or kill passengers or even people in other vehicles.

They also protect other drivers from liability. In the event of an accident, people not wearing seatbelts are more likely to die or get more severely injured, thus resulting in greater civil or even criminal penalties for the driver at fault.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

realjd

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 09:26:46 PM
I think people here simply don't know it's legal. (Across the river in DC it isn't.)

TIL. I thought LTOR from a one-way to a one-way was legal anywhere in the US. I've never driven in the District (if my work takes me there instead of the suburbs, I just take the metro and/or Uber) but that's good to know if I ever need to.

1995hoo

Quote from: realjd on April 15, 2016, 11:18:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 09:26:46 PM
I think people here simply don't know it's legal. (Across the river in DC it isn't.)

TIL. I thought LTOR from a one-way to a one-way was legal anywhere in the US. I've never driven in the District (if my work takes me there instead of the suburbs, I just take the metro and/or Uber) but that's good to know if I ever need to.

I'm sure we've probably had a thread on that before, but I know it's definitely not legal everywhere. Aside from DC, I know North Carolina prohibits it because that was the first thing I looked up in the law library 21 years ago when I started law school down there. I'd moved into my apartment about a week before classes started so I'd have time to explore the area and settle in and I quickly discovered all the one-way streets in downtown Durham, so I went over to the library to find out whether left on red was legal because I knew it wasn't in DC and I didn't know what North Carolina law was. I can't say as I remember any more what the other states are that prohibit it.




Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 07:34:11 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Let me put it another way.

Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?

The cyclists certainly seem to think they have that right and that pedestrians who have the "walk" sign are supposed to stay out of their way.....

I'm more interested in the legal justification behind allowing the motorist to exercise judgement when making a RTOR, but not to extend the same privileges for situations concerning LTOR or Straight-on-Red. What's the fundamental difference, after all?
And I'm interested in the fact that you ducked the question.

Part of what I find amusing about the issue I raised is that there are a lot of pedestrian and cycling advocates who feel they should have flexible rules that allow them to ignore the signs when it suits them to do so, yet they oppose the same principle for drivers of motor vehicles. In another thread in a different subforum he more or less told me I should jaywalk because it's faster. Certainly I can think of intersections where crossing against the light is not a big deal because it's easy to see, but I can also think of others where someone unfamiliar with the area would not know the odd traffic pattern and would take a serious risk jaywalking because he wouldn't realize people would be turning and wouldn't see them coming. I don't necessarily think that sort of thing is a reason to condemn all jaywalkers all the time, although I do see a lot of really stupid behavior out there and I come back to the point you made earlier in the thread about the American attitude of always wanting to protect the dumbest of the dumb.

I think in my mind the analysis of the turning-on-red situation comes down to the idea that yes, it is an exception to the rules, but it's one where the authorities have examined it and determined that the risk posed by that exception is relatively low. Where the risk is higher, they put up a sign restricting or banning the exception. An example of "restricting" is something that ought to be familiar to forum member "AlexandriaVA"–in the City of Alexandria, it's very common to see signs reading "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present." A bunch of lights near the Whole Foods on Duke Street have those, and they're specifically intended to address one of the concerns he's raised. I sometimes find those signs annoying because some drivers not used to them overlook the "when pedestrians are present" portion, but whatever. It seems to me it's not hard at all to think of types of locations where you might be more likely to restrict turns on red–a light outside a subway station, for example, where lots of people are likely to be crossing the street, or perhaps adjacent to a hospital's ER entrance.

It seems to me the idea of allowing an exception deemed to pose a relatively low risk is not all that different in principle from the notion, advocated by many cyclists, of allowing bike riders to run stop signs if they slow and determine the other road is clear. You're trusting the cyclist to use sound judgment and to determine there is nobody coming to whom he would have to yield. Of course we all know in practice that would be taken to mean "I have the right to go and you have to let me," just like a lot of drivers wrongly think "I am entitled to turn right on red, so you have to watch out for me." That attitude is wrong. I don't think it's a reason to ban turning on red, but I do think it might be a reason to restrict it more often in urban and suburban areas, such as the example I gave earlier of not allowing it during daytime hours or near schools during the hours when the school speed limit is in effect.

(Before someone says "the cyclist doesn't pose a danger to other people and the motor vehicles do," I disagree. Certainly a car CAN be more dangerous, but I regularly see cyclists ignoring red lights and rocketing through crosswalks filled with people legally crossing the street. A cyclist plowing into a pedestrian is likely to cause far more injuries to both of them than a very slowly-moving car turning right on red at the same intersection.)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

kphoger

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 16, 2016, 08:50:22 AM
Part of what I find amusing about the issue I raised is that there are a lot of pedestrian and cycling advocates who feel they should have flexible rules that allow them to ignore the signs when it suits them to do so, yet they oppose the same principle for drivers of motor vehicles. In another thread in a different subforum he more or less told me I should jaywalk because it's faster. Certainly I can think of intersections where crossing against the light is not a big deal because it's easy to see, but I can also think of others where someone unfamiliar with the area would not know the odd traffic pattern and would take a serious risk jaywalking because he wouldn't realize people would be turning and wouldn't see them coming. I don't necessarily think that sort of thing is a reason to condemn all jaywalkers all the time, although I do see a lot of really stupid behavior out there and I come back to the point you made earlier in the thread about the American attitude of always wanting to protect the dumbest of the dumb.

* * *

It seems to me the idea of allowing an exception deemed to pose a relatively low risk is not all that different in principle from the notion, advocated by many cyclists, of allowing bike riders to run stop signs if they slow and determine the other road is clear. You're trusting the cyclist to use sound judgment and to determine there is nobody coming to whom he would have to yield. Of course we all know in practice that would be taken to mean "I have the right to go and you have to let me," just like a lot of drivers wrongly think "I am entitled to turn right on red, so you have to watch out for me." That attitude is wrong. I don't think it's a reason to ban turning on red, but I do think it might be a reason to restrict it more often in urban and suburban areas, such as the example I gave earlier of not allowing it during daytime hours or near schools during the hours when the school speed limit is in effect.

(Before someone says "the cyclist doesn't pose a danger to other people and the motor vehicles do," I disagree. Certainly a car CAN be more dangerous, but I regularly see cyclists ignoring red lights and rocketing through crosswalks filled with people legally crossing the street. A cyclist plowing into a pedestrian is likely to cause far more injuries to both of them than a very slowly-moving car turning right on red at the same intersection.)

Now that you've pre-countered my argument...  I do maintain that the risk in a car turning right on red is greater than a cyclist blowing through an intersection.  The damage done by another vehicle crashing into the right-turn offender definitely has greater potential for injury than the bicycling offender.  A bicycle going 15 mph hitting a couple of pedestrians going 3 mph is a far cry from a motor vehicle going 35 mph hitting another motor vehicle at any speed.

(For the record, I've been hit by a car both as a pedestrian and as a cyclist, and the latter more than once.  One of the times I was hit as a cyclist, it was my fault for blowing through the intersection; as a pedestrian, it was the driver's fault for not yielding before turning right.)
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

US 41

^^ This was the only thing I liked about Spain better than here in America. In Spain pedestrians yield for cars rather than cars yielding for pedestrians. In fact all the lights would be red to allow people to get across the street. There's nothing more annoying than sitting at a green light waiting for pedestrians to get across the street. In my home town of Terre Haute, Indiana, the "Spain" rule typically applies, but I've noticed that people have no problem walking out in front of you in places like Bloomington and downtown Indianapolis. IMO yield to pedestrians is poorly phrased. Yes you don't want to hit people, but a lot of people find it totally acceptable to just walk out in front you anymore. The "yield to traffic" phrase should be what people learn.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

1995hoo

Indeed I think some people walk out and essentially dare you to hit them.

Regarding kphoger's point (I won't quote, too hard to edit down the quote on my phone), I admit I wasn't really thinking about vehicle-on-vehicle crashes and in that respect you make a valid point. I was thinking more about the guy turning on red not looking for pedestrians because that scenario is what AlexandriaVA mentioned.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

kphoger

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 16, 2016, 12:26:53 PM
Indeed I think some people walk out and essentially dare you to hit them.

For every pedestrian that walks out and essentially dares you to hit him, there are a thousand drivers who keep going and dare you to walk in front of them.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Duke87

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 16, 2016, 08:50:22 AM
An example of "restricting" is something that ought to be familiar to forum member "AlexandriaVA"–in the City of Alexandria, it's very common to see signs reading "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present." A bunch of lights near the Whole Foods on Duke Street have those, and they're specifically intended to address one of the concerns he's raised. I sometimes find those signs annoying because some drivers not used to them overlook the "when pedestrians are present" portion, but whatever.

I've encountered similar signage in Long Island. I am not a fan of it due to the highly ambiguous meaning of "when pedestrians are present". Does that mean no turn on red when there are pedestrians in or waiting to enter the crosswalk? No turn on red when there are pedestrians near the crosswalk, even if they're walking away from the intersection? No turn on red when there are any pedestrians in sight at all?

This sort of sign smells to me like an opportunity for easy revenue enhancement, and I'm sure some of the drivers declining to turn on red at them are doing so because they smell the same thing.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

davewiecking

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 02:54:44 PM
It wasn't legal in most of the US until 1978, but did most people do it anyways before that?  Or was it completely unheard of?

Pardon me for actually answering the question that started this thread. I got my license in 1973, in Maryland. At that time, it never occurred to me, or anybody else whose car I was in, to turn right at a red light. It's a red light. Red meant stop. I believe it still does.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.