Cross post: Why don't red lights function as alternate stop signs?

[wanderer2575]

I came across this thread on the Straight Dope Message Board.  Link to that thread:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=860748

My son asked me this question the other day and I don't have an answer...  His idea is that a guy facing a red light should have the same rules as a guy facing a stop sign (or blinking red light):  Come to a full stop.  If no perpendicular traffic, then proceed.  The driver from the perpendicular road has the right-of-way.  But the actual rules are of course that a driver cannot proceed through a red light regardless of whether there's any traffic at all from the other direction.  Why is that?

I'm guessing that red lights are generally installed at intersections where it's relatively uncommon for there to be no traffic from the other direction.  But this is very far from uniformly the case, and especially at off-peak hours it's very common for cars to sit waiting for the light to turn green with nothing at all from the other direction.  This seems enormously inefficient.

I can dream up various scenarios where allowing this could cause an accident.  (Perhaps the people will misjudge how far away the traffic is?  Perhaps the second car will be tempted to proceed through without coming to a complete stop?)  But all seem very far-fetched.

I've never thought about that before but it seems like a good question.  If one comes out of a non-signalized crossroad or driveway, one may proceed right, left, or straight through the intersection when one feels it's safe.  But if one comes out at a signal, one has to wait for the green light (permitted turns on red excepted, of course).  Why?

Yes, I've considered that many signalized intersections are limited-visibility.  But yet, one may legally proceed at will through a non-signalized intersection that may be just a hundred feet away from the signalized one.  Visibility isn't any better.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

All traffic engineering is a balance between level of service and safety. If a traffic engineer tells you their first priority is safety, or that they design streets for safety, that is simply not true. If it were, cars would be banned from all streets. Safety is more like a constraint within which engineers try to maximize the level of service.

The reason why proceeding after stop on a red light is prohibited is very simple: drivers are stupid and imperfect. It's the same reason why red turn arrows and NTOR intersections exist (other than where visibility is restricted): when you give drivers the opportunity to make a movement that is potentially dangerous, a certain number are bound to make the dangerous movement. When the number of drivers making the unsafe movement exceeds the acceptable limit, or where making the unsafe movement would be exceptionally fatal, the solution is to take the ability to make that dangerous movement away.

If you allowed proceeding after stop on red by default like RTOR, fatalities would skyrocket, especially among vulnerable road users who are less visible. Traffic signal intersections are prone to highly fatal high-speed T-bone crashes as it is, even prohibiting proceeding on red. We have decided that the additional risk is not worth the time we would save.

[1995hoo]

^^^

Yup. Consider how many people think they are automatically entitled to go right on red and will do so either without stopping or without yielding to other traffic (or both!). If you were allowed to go "straight on red," no doubt the same would occur over time. I've found myself thinking that right on red may need to be more restricted, at least here in the DC area, so I certainly don't think it would be a good idea to loosen other red light rules.

(I deliberately didn't include left on red in all that because so few people know it's allowed even where it's permitted–which, frankly, is a little weird because they're so desperate to go right on red even where it's not allowed!)

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Yup. Consider how many people think they are automatically entitled to go right on red and will do so either without stopping or without yielding to other traffic (or both!). If you were allowed to go "straight on red," no doubt the same would occur over time. I've found myself thinking that right on red may need to be more restricted, at least here in the DC area, so I certainly don't think it would be a good idea to loosen other red light rules.

(I deliberately didn't include left on red in all that because so few people know it's allowed even where it's permitted–which, frankly, is a little weird because they're so desperate to go right on red even where it's not allowed!)

I agree that the current state of RTOR in the US is unacceptable.

It's become so normalized for drivers that they treat it as if it's not worthy of any caution. This is especially bad with suburban drivers who are used to ripping up on the shoulder, glancing briefly to the left without stopping, and completing the turn without even looking to the right. They replicate that behavior in urban areas where it is wholly inappropriate and will actually rage at you for not doing the same.

We should definitely reverse our attitude around RTOR on urban areas. Ban it by default, and only allow the movement if you can justify the safety of it given the characteristics of the intersection. Where there is a conflicting crosswalk it is almost never appropriate.

[UCFKnights]

^^^

Yup. Consider how many people think they are automatically entitled to go right on red and will do so either without stopping or without yielding to other traffic (or both!). If you were allowed to go "straight on red," no doubt the same would occur over time. I've found myself thinking that right on red may need to be more restricted, at least here in the DC area, so I certainly don't think it would be a good idea to loosen other red light rules.

(I deliberately didn't include left on red in all that because so few people know it's allowed even where it's permitted–which, frankly, is a little weird because they're so desperate to go right on red even where it's not allowed!)

I think part of that problem is we are always requiring stopping on right on red, just like many stop signs that should probably be yield signs (or removed altogether), is just flat out entirely unnecessary.

The good news is a few states have declared it legal to go on red after stopping at a "stale" light (my understanding is its mainly targeted at vehicles not triggering detection systems), although the amount of time you have to stop for and other details vary and is often little known. When I was younger, a lot of intersections seemed to be set to run on flash mode outside of popular times when it was deemed unnecessary for the signals to be operable.. A signal serving a school would only be activated when students are actively going to or leaving school, but by 7pm, they'd be flashing.

Infact, one intersection I remember, I believe in Ft Lauderdale, actually had loops farther back on the left turn lane that would eventually backup onto the main road only at certain hours (and with non-aggressive-enough drivers afraid to make the turn) that would only activate after the loop near the end of the turning lane was activated for at least 5 seconds. Then the light would run 2 cycles to clear the backed traffic before returning back to flashing mode. I thought it was so clever (but it has long since been replaced, I believe by a double left turn lane)


This is actually part of the reason I made a topic a few days ago on right turn signals, different designs, etc, so cars can be alerted properly when there is cross pedestrian traffic or whether they can just really yield instead.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

I think part of that problem is we are always requiring stopping on right on red, just like many stop signs that should probably be yield signs (or removed altogether), is just flat out entirely unnecessary.

.  .  .

This is actually part of the reason I made a topic a few days ago on right turn signals, different designs, etc, so cars can be alerted properly when there is cross pedestrian traffic or whether they can just really yield instead.

I have to disagree. Stopping or slowing to near a stop is necessary for a large portion of RTOR situations and allowing RTOR yield to cross traffic either by default or at a significant number of intersections is only going to further the conception that most drivers seem to have that stopping is never necessary for RTOR. Even outlining certain intersections as RTOR after stop is unlikely to make drivers stop unless they personally feel it's necessary (they don't, many drivers don't consider the possible presence of pedestrians) or they fear enforcement (RTOR after stop is very rarely enforced).

I agree that we could make vehicular signal indications more clear in some situations as to whether a pedestrian conflict exists, but that is usually not a desirable solution to allow safe RTOR in cities because such setups usually require pedestrian actuation to trigger walk signs. It's really hostile design to require a pedestrian to push a button for every single street they want to cross and also limits options when crossing diagonally. I dislike this solution except at midblock crossings or for arterials with low volumes where it's unavoidable.

The only reason RTOR exists in eastern states is by federal mandate to save fuel. It's not the 1970's, our cars are more efficient and start-stop/hybrid systems in modern vehicles make the fuel savings that originally inspired default RTOR negligible. Our thinking should not be so obsessed with allowing it by default anymore when current circumstances allow us to be more sparing with its usage.

[Brandon]

We should definitely reverse our attitude around RTOR on urban areas. Ban it by default, and only allow the movement if you can justify the safety of it given the characteristics of the intersection. Where there is a conflicting crosswalk it is almost never appropriate.

Coming from west of the Alleghenies, I must respectfully disagree with you on RTOR.  It should always be legal unless there is an explicit engineering reason to prohibit it at any specific given intersection.  It is already the law to give pedestrians the right of way at these crosswalks even with ROTR, thus your argument is moot.  And having observed vehicular and pedestrian movement in these cities (even including Chicago where traffic is of the Wild West variety - a complete lack of rules), the vast majority respect that rules and wait for the pedestrians and cross traffic to clear.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

It is already the law to give pedestrians the right of way at these crosswalks even with ROTR, thus your argument is moot.  And having observed vehicular and pedestrian movement in these cities (even including Chicago where traffic is of the Wild West variety - a complete lack of rules), the vast majority respect that rules and wait for the pedestrians and cross traffic to clear.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if all motorists followed the law?

May I direct your attention to this study which found the majority of drivers did not properly check for pedestrians when turning right. Or the IIHS literature on RTOR which finds:

From a review of the available literature it is estimated that at the approximately 80% of all signalized intersections where motorists are allowed to turn right on red all right-turning crashes increase by about 23%, pedestrian crashes by about 60%, and bicyclist crashes by about 100%.

Empirically, "the law" is not preventing crashes in urban RTOR situations, especially for pedestrians and cyclists.

[UCFKnights]

I have to disagree. Stopping or slowing to near a stop is necessary for a large portion of RTOR situations and allowing RTOR yield to cross traffic either by default or at a significant number of intersections is only going to further the conception that most drivers seem to have that stopping is never necessary for RTOR.

If the indication is more clear on when its safe to do so, or when you really need to stop (primarily when you have pedestrians potentially crossing perpendicular to you, as thats when you have the biggest visibility problem) I think you will see a TON more respect for it. From what I've seen, the RRFB seems to get respect from most drivers, causing them to stop and yield to pedestrians very successfully. Drivers don't have a problem stopping when it seems necessary. When its not necessary 95% of the time and is 5% of the time, thats when its most dangerous, and you need a good indication for that 5% of the time. Banning it for the 5% of the time it is dangerous just is going to create more road rage, cause tons of traffic problems, etc.

There was one intersection where I used to live where they added NTOR signage with heavy pedestrian traffic, and it caused major backups for vehicles who wanted to turn right. The big problem is the walk signal for the parallel crosswalk was in its walk phase pretty much the entire time the thru traffic had its green and thus right could pretty much never make its turn. The right turn on red is how most of the traffic actually made its turn. It pushed lots of road rage as the real result of that restriction was basically no right turn, period, until they removed it after a few weeks.

Even outlining certain intersections as RTOR after stop is unlikely to make drivers stop unless they personally feel it's necessary (they don't, many drivers don't consider the possible presence of pedestrians) or they fear enforcement (RTOR after stop is very rarely enforced).

The reason they don't feel its necessary from simple signs anymore is because its so often abused. Its just like the speed limits on highways. When the speed limit is 70 and the average speed of traffic is 85, traffic is well trained to ignore the speed limit signs, its just a recommendation and a way to get revenue from people. You want people to respect the speed limits, you need to make sure that like 90% of the people are not continually breaking the law, and thus raise the speed limit to whatever it takes. Once people see that philosophy is generally applied everywhere, people will once again learn that the speed limit sign actually means something, and it can be used to slow cars down through dangerous areas. The same would work for right turns. I no doubt agree the current system is really terrible though, having it be dangerous 5% of the time makes it extremely dangeorus.

I agree that we could make vehicular signal indications more clear in some situations as to whether a pedestrian conflict exists, but that is usually not a desirable solution to allow safe RTOR in cities because such setups usually require pedestrian actuation to trigger walk signs. It's really hostile design to require a pedestrian to push a button for every single street they want to cross and also limits options when crossing diagonally. I dislike this solution except at midblock crossings or for arterials with low volumes where it's unavoidable.

Just as you say its hostile for pedestrians to have to press a button and follow their signals, its hostile to vehicles to not allow safe RTORs. If we're gonna rant about cars not properly doing the RTOR, we also gotta blame the pedestrians who can't manage to follow their signals.

The only reason RTOR exists in eastern states is by federal mandate to save fuel. It's not the 1970's, our cars are more efficient and start-stop/hybrid systems in modern vehicles make the fuel savings that originally inspired default RTOR negligible. Our thinking should not be so obsessed with allowing it by default anymore when current circumstances allow us to be more sparing with its usage.

The simple fact is it still saves significant fuel. My car (a Honda Accord) gives me my mpg averages over time, and it goes down significantly in areas where I can't RTOR, because of much longer delays and sitting idling. And start-stop systems in the cars really are not very comfortable for the longer stops, if they work at all. Vehicles turn off the AC when it shuts off the engine, so if you're stuck waiting for 4 minutes for a light, the car can get pretty hot, so causing unnecessary excessive stops leads to people turning off the start-stop system, if the car doesn't automatically turn it off to keep the climate control system running. Cars that have electric ACs are rare; cars that have electric heating systems are even rarer. With few exceptions, only electric cars, and those people are really dependent on traffic flow for range, sitting running the AC and not moving is just gonna make it harder for people to use electric cars.

The simple fact is we're built around cars, and attempts by urban areas to just make vehicles sit waiting for others isn't going to work, its just gonna make road rage. They have to coexist with pedestrians as peacefully as possible with minimal impacts to each other as practical.

[paulthemapguy]

I just wish people would come to a complete stop before making the right turn on red, as is the law in Illinois.  I know that in many other states, the law does NOT require people to stop before making the right turn.  I think more states should have this law...or at least urban areas can adopt this as a local law since that's where you really need to watch out for pedestrians and bicyclists.

[1995hoo]

One thing I've noted around here is that people looking to go right on red often look for traffic approaching from the left (on the cross street) but fail to consider that traffic coming the other way on their own street might have a green arrow. This happens fairly frequently in the morning when I leave my neighborhood–I get a green arrow to go left and someone on the other side of the intersection tries to make a right on red when I'm going left. In theory this wouldn't be a problem if people turned into the proper lane–I turn into the left lane and the right-turner turns into the right lane–but that seldom happens because the right-turners often cut directly across to the left lane. People in the DC area generally have no lane discipline whatsoever when turning, even when there are dual turn lanes and there's someone in the lane to one's left (I have nearly been hit quite a few times when I use the left-hand right-turn lane and the guy to my right turns into my lane–and usually those people will give you the finger and become enraged that you "got in their way").

That all makes me think of a further problem with allowing "straight on red": Hiw does the person who wants to go straight necessarily know whether the other side might have a green light? Most drivers don't ever look at the other street's signals, for example. (I do: If I'm waiting for my light to go green, I often watch the other street's light to see when it turns yellow so I can shift into gear and be ready to go. How I wish our traffic lights had the combined red-yellow cycle you see in, among other places, the UK!) If you look at the other street's signals and they're red, you may be able to surmise that the guy coming the opposite way across from you may have a green arrow, though that's not a certainty. The average driver would never do this, of course, and it's pretty obvious why that would be such a problem!



The thing about flashing signals makes me think of the old debate about "do you wait for the green at two in the morning." I remember when I was growing up some, but not all, of the lights in Fairfax City went to a flashing cycle overnight, especially lights at shopping center entrances because the stores were closed and there wasn't much reason for those lights to be operating then. They don't do that anymore. I guess a more modern solution would be to have a sensor that gives the shopping center exit the green light only on demand during late nights.

On the broader question of obeying lights late at night, I had a college roommate who always did because once when he stopped at a red light and then went when it was clear, a cop saw it and gave him a ticket. For me it's more nuanced. When I was living in Durham, NC, during law school, there were some pretty rough areas I'd pass through where I absolutely wouldn't wait for the green, the parts of town that fit the Bruce Springsteen lyric "down in the part of town where when you hit a red light you don't stop."

[US 89]

I just wish people would come to a complete stop before making the right turn on red, as is the law in Illinois.  I know that in many other states, the law does NOT require people to stop before making the right turn.  I think more states should have this law...or at least urban areas can adopt this as a local law since that's where you really need to watch out for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Where does a red light not require a stop, even for a right turn? The only exception I can think of is a channelized right turn where you don't technically go through the signalized intersection--which is indeed quite dangerous for pedestrians.

[ilpt4u]

I just wish people would come to a complete stop before making the right turn on red, as is the law in Illinois.  I know that in many other states, the law does NOT require people to stop before making the right turn.  I think more states should have this law...or at least urban areas can adopt this as a local law since that's where you really need to watch out for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Where does a red light not require a stop, even for a right turn? The only exception I can think of is a channelized right turn where you don't technically go through the signalized intersection--which is indeed quite dangerous for pedestrians.

I know in the STL area in MO, many right turn lanes @ Signalized Intersections are signed with a "Yield"  sign for the Right Turn movement, which, by signage, makes the Right Turn Movement a Yield, not a Stop, on the Red Light. And that is how it is treated by drivers in the area, as well

[UCFKnights]

One thing I've noted around here is that people looking to go right on red often look for traffic approaching from the left (on the cross street) but fail to consider that traffic coming the other way on their own street might have a green arrow. This happens fairly frequently in the morning when I leave my neighborhood–I get a green arrow to go left and someone on the other side of the intersection tries to make a right on red when I'm going left. In theory this wouldn't be a problem if people turned into the proper lane–I turn into the left lane and the right-turner turns into the right lane–but that seldom happens because the right-turners often cut directly across to the left lane. People in the DC area generally have no lane discipline whatsoever when turning, even when there are dual turn lanes and there's someone in the lane to one's left (I have nearly been hit quite a few times when I use the left-hand right-turn lane and the guy to my right turns into my lane–and usually those people will give you the finger and become enraged that you "got in their way").

That all makes me think of a further problem with allowing "straight on red": Hiw does the person who wants to go straight necessarily know whether the other side might have a green light? Most drivers don't ever look at the other street's signals, for example. (I do: If I'm waiting for my light to go green, I often watch the other street's light to see when it turns yellow so I can shift into gear and be ready to go. How I wish our traffic lights had the combined red-yellow cycle you see in, among other places, the UK!) If you look at the other street's signals and they're red, you may be able to surmise that the guy coming the opposite way across from you may have a green arrow, though that's not a certainty. The average driver would never do this, of course, and it's pretty obvious why that would be such a problem!



The thing about flashing signals makes me think of the old debate about "do you wait for the green at two in the morning." I remember when I was growing up some, but not all, of the lights in Fairfax City went to a flashing cycle overnight, especially lights at shopping center entrances because the stores were closed and there wasn't much reason for those lights to be operating then. They don't do that anymore. I guess a more modern solution would be to have a sensor that gives the shopping center exit the green light only on demand during late nights.

On the broader question of obeying lights late at night, I had a college roommate who always did because once when he stopped at a red light and then went when it was clear, a cop saw it and gave him a ticket. For me it's more nuanced. When I was living in Durham, NC, during law school, there were some pretty rough areas I'd pass through where I absolutely wouldn't wait for the green, the parts of town that fit the Bruce Springsteen lyric "down in the part of town where when you hit a red light you don't stop."

I imagine realistically the rule would have to be you may proceed after stopping if nobody desires to go in any conflicting direction to you. Based on how people perform at 4 way stops and just how confusing and dangerous they are, you don't want to recreate that situation in a signalized intersection.

I much preferred the days of the flashing lights vs the sensors at night for shopping centers/business parks, whenever I drive at night, I always manage to have someone pull up to one right when I'm just at the point of being too far to go through the light but too close to stop smoothly.

[Super Mateo]

This is a disaster waiting to happen.  The pedestrian angle was already covered, and I agree with what was posted above, but this essentially turns busy intersections into two way stops.  In this area, it is seriously painful to watch people attempt to make lefts onto main streets from a stop sign.  They get impatient because they don't have the right of way over anyone and will just randomly pull out once they've waited enough.  Often, they only check to their left and will block all traffic from the left if that from the right isn't clear.  Left turners rarely wait for the right of way.  That's what we would have.  These turners would be in everyone's way, plus drivers would have to worry about cross traffic pulling out at every light.  It won't work.  If it did, a two way stop would be fine and the light unnecessary.

[vdeane]

But a two way stop doesn't cycle.  The side with the stop NEVER gets the right of way.  With these rules for the lights, it would function as a two way stop where the right of way is guaranteed to switch in time; the "I'm stuck and may never have a chance to get out" effect therefore would not happen.

[doorknob60]

Bad idea. Drivers are too stupid, and there are too many intersections out there where it would not be safe.

If your concern is waiting on empty roads, signals should be programmed to quickly give you a green in those situations. That basically solves that problem: if the other road is empty, you shouldn't have to wait longer than 5-10 seconds to get a green. If this is not happening, the signals should probably be re-programmed (exceptions being downtown cores on a fixed timing system with short cycles).

And if the other road isn't empty, well, it probably isn't safe to proceed.

However, I am a fan of Idaho's law regarding this, for bicycles. Bicycles can treat any red light like a stop sign, and any stop sign like a yield sign. Sounds morbid, but if the cyclist is careless and goes when they shouldn't when taking advantage of this, it's their own fault and they likely aren't going to harm anyone other than themselves (unlike a car). Plus bikes are small and easier to maneuver, making it easier to avoid accidents at the last second if necessary. I drive in downtown Boise every day where there are lots of bikes, and it's rarely an issue.

[webny99]

I get a green arrow to go left and someone on the other side of the intersection tries to make a right on red when I'm going left. In theory this wouldn't be a problem if people turned into the proper lane–I turn into the left lane and the right-turner turns into the right lane–but that seldom happens because the right-turners often cut directly across to the left lane. People in the DC area generally have no lane discipline whatsoever when turning, even when there are dual turn lanes and there's someone in the lane to one's left

Drivers around here are a lot better about making dual-turning movements. I can think of several locations where there's not even a green arrow, just a regular green, and people still double-turn (from the left and right simultaneously) onto the cross street.

This is especially common during the morning rush, when the vast majority of traffic from both directions is approaching and turning the same direction onto a city(or freeway)-bound arterial. If those turning left yielded, they'd never get to go (unless there's an arrow); it is a lot more efficient when a little lane discipline enables both directions to fill the arterial simultaneously. All the more so when traffic is highly directional.

[vdeane]

Drivers are too stupid

This is why I'd love for us to radically increase the requirements to get a licence.  As it is right now, just about anyone can get one, since puttering around a residential area for 5 minutes and taking a quick multiple choice test about really basic stuff in the manual is pretty easy.  Let's require driver's ed (GOOD driver's ed, not "let's just show them a bunch of videos about the dangers of drunk driving") and a much more comprehensive road test for everyone.  Let's make it retroactive, such that everyone would need it (after a grace period of two years, to ensure a fair chance to meet the requirements) when they renew.  Heck, let's go so far as to permanently take away one's licence if they're at fault for a crash that kills or injures a person and/or causes $1000 or more in property damage.

I've never been a fan of legislating based on the lowest common denominator.

there are too many intersections out there where it would not be safe.

Sounds similar to places with "no turn on red" signs.

However, I am a fan of Idaho's law regarding this, for bicycles. Bicycles can treat any red light like a stop sign, and any stop sign like a yield sign. Sounds morbid, but if the cyclist is careless and goes when they shouldn't when taking advantage of this, it's their own fault and they likely aren't going to harm anyone other than themselves (unlike a car). Plus bikes are small and easier to maneuver, making it easier to avoid accidents at the last second if necessary. I drive in downtown Boise every day where there are lots of bikes, and it's rarely an issue.

There have been cases of cyclists mowing down pedestrians.  And I wouldn't put it past some members of the bike lobby to claim the driver was at fault if a bicyclist blew through a red light or stop sign without looking and got hit.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

There have been cases of cyclists mowing down pedestrians.  And I wouldn't put it past some members of the bike lobby to claim the driver was at fault if a bicyclist blew through a red light or stop sign without looking and got hit.

There are thousands of cases of motorists killing pedestrians a year. Cyclists, at most a couple. Pedestrian fatalities due to bicycle collisions are a rounding error compared to those caused by motor vehicles, even adjusted for VMT. Injuries don't compare either.

The idea of "vehicular cycling," as a road design philosophy or a framework for developing road rules, is pseudoscientific–discouraging at best and fatal at worst–and has set North America back decades in increasing the cycling mode share. A bicycle is different than a car, and acting like treating them the same will solve all our problems is clearly ridiculous.

Who cares what these theoretical members of the bike lobby think? Our criminal justice system is set up so that motor vehicles are basically legal murder weapons. Do you really think drivers are going to start getting prosecuted for killing people, their fault or not, on any large scale?

[ipeters61]

It's become so normalized for drivers that they treat it as if it's not worthy of any caution. This is especially bad with suburban drivers who are used to ripping up on the shoulder, glancing briefly to the left without stopping, and completing the turn without even looking to the right. They replicate that behavior in urban areas where it is wholly inappropriate and will actually rage at you for not doing the same.

We should definitely reverse our attitude around RTOR on urban areas. Ban it by default, and only allow the movement if you can justify the safety of it given the characteristics of the intersection. Where there is a conflicting crosswalk it is almost never appropriate.

Two cases of why I can't stand right turn on red:

1. On my way to/from work when I decide to drive (I live 1 mile from work but summer in Delaware sucks so I sometimes choose to drive): I have to turn right and turn left, both ways.  However, the left turn must be made from a 4 lane divided highway at the next light.  People have honked at me and been aggressive when I have to cut across two lanes within not enough distance that I'm comfortable making the maneuver (especially in traffic).

2. Last weekend, I was walking to the post office and had a walk signal on the street I was crossing.  Someone dropped someone off from their car on the cross street and continued to turn right almost directly into me (I had to stop walking even though I clearly had right of way - I was about 5 feet from her car).  Likewise (though not no turn on red, still a violation of pedestrian laws), when I was in grad school, I was walking through an intersection with a green light and this guy flies through the intersection (turning right) when I was entering the crosswalk, even though I was clearly visible (around 7:30am).

[ipeters61]

This is a disaster waiting to happen.  The pedestrian angle was already covered, and I agree with what was posted above, but this essentially turns busy intersections into two way stops.  In this area, it is seriously painful to watch people attempt to make lefts onto main streets from a stop sign.  They get impatient because they don't have the right of way over anyone and will just randomly pull out once they've waited enough.  Often, they only check to their left and will block all traffic from the left if that from the right isn't clear.  Left turners rarely wait for the right of way.  That's what we would have.  These turners would be in everyone's way, plus drivers would have to worry about cross traffic pulling out at every light.  It won't work.  If it did, a two way stop would be fine and the light unnecessary.

I hate putting in two posts in the same thread within 5 minutes of each other, but someone posted as I was reading through the rest of the thread.

When I had my old car, I was hit by someone who proceeded through a two-way stop intersection and just kept proceeding across the 55 MPH divided highway I was traveling on.  Thankfully I was able to swerve a bit (but couldn't stop since traffic was thick and I didn't want to smash my brakes and cause a rear ending) so the damage was fairly minor.

Also, when I drive down to the beach in Delaware, Route 1 has several crossovers with local traffic trying to force their way into aggressive 60-75 MPH beach traffic barreling into them.  Sure, it's a hell of a lot better than NJ-47 heading down to the Jersey Shore (I have a very anti Garden State Parkway family), but it's extremely uncomfortable passing through those crossovers, especially at night when the cross traffic's headlights are hardly bright enough to see them.  I always slow to 50-55 MPH when approaching them if I see cars (I usually stick to the right lane and the speed limit is 55).  In all honesty, I have very little faith in the drivers in that part of Delaware.

[kalvado]

20160805 had it right.  Signal timings are important for all phases of traffic.  If there's a green light that's too short, it will severely congest traffic.  Many pedestrians also are motorists or bus riders.  People that hate waiting 30 seconds for a Ped Walk signal will be more irritated when they're stuck in traffic for 10 minutes because green light timings ares too short to allow traffic to efficiently let traffic move.  People walk at all different speeds as well (not to mention joggers, runners, bicyclists, etc), so while there's an 'ideal' walking speed that we've discussed in the past, there are just too many speed variations to please everyone. 

Pedestrians complain they get to the light and it's red and it should be timed better for them.  Bicyclists complain they get to the light and it's red and it should be timed better for them.  How do you possibly time the light to please both of these groups of people that feel that they are the entitled group that engineers should pay attention to the most?

One of the things that would make buttons more workable is squeezing walk cycle after next phase, not after fixed phase at the end of a cycle. There has to be a safeguard against actuating walk phase multiple times per cycle, though. So little change for busy downtown crosswalks, but less walked intersections would benefit from reduced wait times for pedestrians and little, if any, change for vehicles as traffic still has to wait through a walk cycle. One may argue that pedestrian has as much responsibility to wait as a driver - but waiting in climate controlled seat and standing in the elements are somewhat different. 
It requires a bit of controller upgrade, but anything designed within past 5-10 years should have no issue handling that. It is, as with many other things on the road, about designers who seem to be using helicopters and never being out in the street.

[Duke87]

This is why I'd love for us to radically increase the requirements to get a licence.  As it is right now, just about anyone can get one, since puttering around a residential area for 5 minutes and taking a quick multiple choice test about really basic stuff in the manual is pretty easy.  Let's require driver's ed (GOOD driver's ed, not "let's just show them a bunch of videos about the dangers of drunk driving") and a much more comprehensive road test for everyone.  Let's make it retroactive, such that everyone would need it (after a grace period of two years, to ensure a fair chance to meet the requirements) when they renew.  Heck, let's go so far as to permanently take away one's licence if they're at fault for a crash that kills or injures a person and/or causes $1000 or more in property damage.

I'm on board with the idea of making licensing requirements more stringent.

When it comes to drivers at fault in crashes, however, I can't get on board with your line of thinking for two key reasons:

1) Being at fault for a nasty crash might indicate that the person responsible is poorly qualified as a driver... or it might not. A single event has zero statistical significance. The best driver in the world could make one mistake at the wrong time, the worst driver in the world could keep getting lucky and never crash into anyone. If you want to take licenses away from bad drivers, you need to establish that there is a pattern of bad behavior to justify this penalty. Otherwise, you might as well just start picking people at random and taking their licenses away.

2) Imposing standard criminal penalties on anyone at fault for a crash creates the perverse incentive of encouraging people to hit and run. If a driver hits a pedestrian, we want them to do the right thing and stay at the scene and call 911. But if they know that doing that means they will face severe penalties such as permanently losing their license, why would they stay at the scene? If they flee they might get caught, sure, but they have little to lose and everything to gain by doing so. If you had to chose between a 100% chance of losing your license and a 50% chance of losing your license, which would you take?
For the sake of keeping drivers at the scene, therefore, it is important I say to take the opposite philosophy - call 911 and stay at the scene and the penalties imposed upon you will be kept minimal, since you did the right thing. Flee, and then the book gets thrown at you because there is no excuse for that.

[Plutonic Panda]

It is already the law to give pedestrians the right of way at these crosswalks even with ROTR, thus your argument is moot.  And having observed vehicular and pedestrian movement in these cities (even including Chicago where traffic is of the Wild West variety - a complete lack of rules), the vast majority respect that rules and wait for the pedestrians and cross traffic to clear.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if all motorists followed the law?

May I direct your attention to this study which found the majority of drivers did not properly check for pedestrians when turning right. Or the IIHS literature on RTOR which finds:

From a review of the available literature it is estimated that at the approximately 80% of all signalized intersections where motorists are allowed to turn right on red all right-turning crashes increase by about 23%, pedestrian crashes by about 60%, and bicyclist crashes by about 100%.

Empirically, "the law" is not preventing crashes in urban RTOR situations, especially for pedestrians and cyclists.

no thank you! Turning right on red is completely acceptable and here in LA most people will look for pedestrians and yield to them accordingly. Hell, drivers will slam on their brakes at a mid block crosswalk at times if they see pedestrians.

If anything, they need to rethink some areas they have rtor restrictions and allow of left turn movements on red in more areas.