San Francisco explores banning right turns at red lights

[bing101]

https://www.sfexaminer.com/the-city/sf-explores-banning-right-turns-at-red-lights/?fbclid=IwAR0-eZ2NUl5ROs22WfdYGbW5mWDFF40BFLSr8469Tt64XbFnA2bqVktk0FY


This Proposal is at play here.

[Max Rockatansky]

Its pretty much impossible in most parts of the city to turn right on red anyways.

[mrsman]

I generally like the idea.  I think each implementation should also incorporate leading pedestrian interval signaling when possible.

But I want to make sure that each implementation occurs where pedestrian traffic is significant.  A "no turn on red" sign will be placed at each intersection where it is implementd (not just at city boundaries as in N.Y.).  Right turn arrows should be implemented widely wherever there are complementary left turn arrows.  There are also many T-intersections where NTOR is inappropriate, since drivers do not need to focus any attention on traffic to their left and could focus on turning right during pedestrian gaps relatively safely.  A wider use of pedestrian buttons and traffic sensors would be appropriate so that signals don't turn red for no reason or are red longer than they must be.  [This should always be true IMO, but especially where drivers are completely stuck and can't even turn right on red.]

NTOR is burdensome and causes delay to motorists, but is appropriate for ped safety.  There are many intersection in SF where this is appropriate, but it should not be done globally without careful analysis of each signal's operation.

[jeffandnicole]

I generally like the idea...

Actually, it seems like you are extremely opposed to the idea.

SF, like any other city and municilality, can utilize NTOR signage today. This law will be a blanket ban for turning on red.

And like most articles, this one tends to read as opinion when it comes to pedestrian deaths. It doesn't state who was at fault in those deaths.

Transportation officials this week discussed exploring eliminating rights on red, citing The City's 14th traffic fatality this year as a call to action.

[Rothman]

I can't imagine NYC putting signage up at every intersection to remind people to not turn right on red.

[kalvado]

I can't imagine NYC putting signage up at every intersection to remind people to not turn right on red.

Why? They are putting traffic lights on each of those intersections, so adding a sign to a project is an easier part.
Putting all those signs at the same time, as a separate project, is a completely different story, though.

[Rothman]

I can't imagine NYC putting signage up at every intersection to remind people to not turn right on red.

Why? They are putting traffic lights on each of those intersections, so adding a sign to a project is an easier part.
Putting all those signs at the same time, as a separate project, is a completely different story, though.

The sheer number of intersections.  It would be a tremendous waste, given the general understanding of the citywide ban.

[roadman65]

Welcome to NY City.

[MikeTheActuary]

I can't imagine NYC putting signage up at every intersection to remind people to not turn right on red.

Why? They are putting traffic lights on each of those intersections, so adding a sign to a project is an easier part.
Putting all those signs at the same time, as a separate project, is a completely different story, though.

However, at certain intersections, isn't there already a problem with a plethora of signs being present, which drivers need to be aware of?

Adding an additional set of NTOR signs adds distraction, one that might be unnecessary if there is a blanket ban.

[oscar]

How does Montreal handle its blanket RTOR ban? I recall the ban covering the entire island of Montreal is well-signed as you enter the city, with occasional reminders inside the city.

[MikeTheActuary]

How does Montreal handle its blanket RTOR ban? I recall the ban covering the entire island of Montreal is well-signed as you enter the city, with occasional reminders inside the city.

That's pretty much it.  However, Montréal has the advantage of having only a limited number of ways onto the the island, so it doesn't take as much signage to warn inbound drivers.

https://goo.gl/maps/7dkA2WxQrXSWjdFw8

[mrsman]

I generally like the idea...

Actually, it seems like you are extremely opposed to the idea.

SF, like any other city and municilality, can utilize NTOR signage today. This law will be a blanket ban for turning on red.

And like most articles, this one tends to read as opinion when it comes to pedestrian deaths. It doesn't state who was at fault in those deaths.

Transportation officials this week discussed exploring eliminating rights on red, citing The City's 14th traffic fatality this year as a call to action.

I wouldn't say extremely opposed, just generally favorable.

I don't believe in a blanket restrictive rule, as exceptions could generally be reasonable.  From what I know of SF (and I have been there a number of times) NTOR is appropriate for most intersections, especially near Downtown and transit stations.  But probably not appropriate for every single intersection.  There are many intersections that today permit TOR that should be NTOR because of heavy pedestrian use, even though sight lines are generally OK. 

But at the same time, there are some intersections where it just isn't necessary.  And in cases where it is necessary, it's effect can be mitigated with right turn arrows and/or pedestrian push buttons.

Even NYC recognizes exceptions.  While they have a blanket rule in place, they did find some intersections (mostly in areas that are semi-suburban) whre TOR makes sense.  [IMO there are plenty more that should be considered for the exception, but I am happy with NTOR through most of Manhattan as well as areas with a decent walking population.]  They utilize the following sign:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/triborough/14663158451

California, of course, has the opposite problem.  Most intersections are TOR with exceptions generally if bad geometry interferes with sightlines.  This proposed rule will change the defaults.  The default is NTOR, but hopefully with appropriate exceptions.

Here's one example, Geary/Divisadero

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7834195,-122.4394581,3a,75y,179.06h,85.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sREtTmK_O1-PhlHGchLqLBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Busy intersection, significant number of pedestrians, businesses and other pedestrian destinations, heavy transit use (the bus on Geary is the busiest bus line in SF), but apparently as of the date of GSV allows TOR.  IMO, this is a very good candidate for NTOR.

[ClassicHasClass]

Its pretty much impossible in most parts of the city to turn right on red anyways.

It's pretty much impossible in most parts of the city to drive. And I'm sure that's intentional.

[Rothman]

Its pretty much impossible in most parts of the city to turn right on red anyways.

It's pretty much impossible in most parts of the city to drive. And I'm sure that's intentional.

*shrug*

I didn't have much trouble with driving in SF when I lived there.  I lived in the Richmond District and at Fillmore and Geary, across from the "new" Fillmore.

[michravera]

Welcome to NY City.

It seems wrong for the pedestrian both to have the right of way and to prohibit right on red after stop. There are plenty of intersections (even inside San Francisco) where even right on roll should be allowed. Why not just prohibit right on red after stop during heavy pedestrian hours at those few intersections where you probably never can make a right turn anyway.
The problem with making right turns with pedestrians involved is that a regular light will often favor pedestrians in one direction or the other for almost all of the time. The natural time to make a right turn is at about the 70% point of the red light you are facing. If you have to wait until green, you have to mow down pedestrians that are crossing with the green on your destination street.

This seems like a commie plot to get people not to drive in San Francisco.

[jeffandnicole]

The other problem is that the law states the pedestrian should only begin walking when they have the walk sign, not the don't walk sign. We all know people ignore that, and there is absolutely no way anyone could even suggest the cops enforce it. Otherwise, they'll be subjected to a barrage of comments of how they need to worry about other matters.

[mrsman]

Welcome to NY City.

It seems wrong for the pedestrian both to have the right of way and to prohibit right on red after stop. There are plenty of intersections (even inside San Francisco) where even right on roll should be allowed. Why not just prohibit right on red after stop during heavy pedestrian hours at those few intersections where you probably never can make a right turn anyway.
The problem with making right turns with pedestrians involved is that a regular light will often favor pedestrians in one direction or the other for almost all of the time. The natural time to make a right turn is at about the 70% point of the red light you are facing. If you have to wait until green, you have to mow down pedestrians that are crossing with the green on your destination street.

This seems like a commie plot to get people not to drive in San Francisco.

The real concern is that some drivers have problems doing two things at once.  To make a RTOR, you have two separate things to focus on:  finding a gap in traffic making the right turn, and watching for opposing directions in both directions.  Often people are so focused on the first, that they ignore the peds.  This is known to be a ped safety problem.

But you are correct that at the same time, the municipality should do everything in their power to make turns easier if they put in this restriction.  To the extent that right on red can occur safely, like in complement to a left turn arrow, this should be allowed with a right turn arrow.

EDITED TO ADD:  And yes, in some cases, RTOR would only make sense with a time restriction - during times of busiest pedestrian activity.

[mrsman]

Found this interesting powerpoint on signal timing and pedestrians with a focus on SF.  (Don't know why Palo Alto is hosting it.)

https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68919

Some highlights include maps showing all the signals in SF and listing which are actuated and which are on timer.  Also, a good illustration of some pedestrian friendly signals at Franklin/Hayes that allow for a lead pedestrian phase as well as an exclusive right turn phase at the end of the green phase.  The document is from 2011, and there are many intersections that already have such signals as of today.

[djsekani]

The other problem is that the law states the pedestrian should only begin walking when they have the walk sign, not the don't walk sign. We all know people ignore that, and there is absolutely no way anyone could even suggest the cops enforce it. Otherwise, they'll be subjected to a barrage of comments of how they need to worry about other matters.

This exact thing happened when they tried to enforce jaywalking rules in downtown Los Angeles. That area is basically a free-for-all with oblivious pedestrians and now e-scooters.

[skluth]

The other problem is that the law states the pedestrian should only begin walking when they have the walk sign, not the don't walk sign. We all know people ignore that, and there is absolutely no way anyone could even suggest the cops enforce it. Otherwise, they'll be subjected to a barrage of comments of how they need to worry about other matters.

This exact thing happened when they tried to enforce jaywalking rules in downtown Los Angeles. That area is basically a free-for-all with oblivious pedestrians and now e-scooters.

It's better than the China solution of ubiquitous cameras everywhere giving people negative social scores.

[kalvado]

The other problem is that the law states the pedestrian should only begin walking when they have the walk sign, not the don't walk sign. We all know people ignore that, and there is absolutely no way anyone could even suggest the cops enforce it. Otherwise, they'll be subjected to a barrage of comments of how they need to worry about other matters.

This exact thing happened when they tried to enforce jaywalking rules in downtown Los Angeles. That area is basically a free-for-all with oblivious pedestrians and now e-scooters.

It's better than the China solution of ubiquitous cameras everywhere giving people negative social scores.

Thinking about some old communist practices which were considered totally unacceptable in US - like requiring ID for travel - only to be implemented at a later date.... Expect face recognition cameras to be installed 2-3 decades from now. License plate cameras and unclear data usage policies are already considered a concern by some.

[skluth]

The other problem is that the law states the pedestrian should only begin walking when they have the walk sign, not the don't walk sign. We all know people ignore that, and there is absolutely no way anyone could even suggest the cops enforce it. Otherwise, they'll be subjected to a barrage of comments of how they need to worry about other matters.

This exact thing happened when they tried to enforce jaywalking rules in downtown Los Angeles. That area is basically a free-for-all with oblivious pedestrians and now e-scooters.

It's better than the China solution of ubiquitous cameras everywhere giving people negative social scores.

Thinking about some old communist practices which were considered totally unacceptable in US - like requiring ID for travel - only to be implemented at a later date.... Expect face recognition cameras to be installed 2-3 decades from now. License plate cameras and unclear data usage policies are already considered a concern by some.

I don't mind the cameras as a tool for some law enforcement. I do mind them when they are used as an arbitrary arbiter of the law such as red light cameras. Camera were instrumental in finding out what's happened and the guilty parties on several occasions starting with the London bombings in 2005. I'm not sure we'd have solved the Boston Marathon bombing without them. That's how they should be used. It's another paradigm shift where law has yet to catch up with the technology.