Prohibiting RTOR

[roadfro]

Fair point. But it'd be a good public safety alternative, even if it took an extra two to three minutes out of ones day per red light. I think before something widescale like what I suggested to be implemented, lights would have to re-synched.

Keep in mind one of the reasons right turn on red exists in the first place is to cut down on unnecessary waiting at a signal, by performing a maneuver that is inherently safe when all the rules are followed. That two or three minutes is going to add up real fast, in terms of wasted fuel and increased emissions. Outlawing RTOR may also decrease capacity at intersections (especially those without a right turn lane) and may require re-timing of signal cycles to help accommodate it...considering many jurisdictions still don't have the manpower to re-time all of their signals every two years (as I believe is recommended), nor technology to run synchronized signal systems, I'd say this is pretty much not going to happen.

"Watch for pedestrians when you turn" is one of the least emphasized rules in all of driving- let's try emphasizing it!

This is probably part of the reason why the FHWA adopted the "turning vehicles yield to pedestrian" (R10-15) sign in the 2009 MUTCD. The sign was supposedly based on a sign that has been used in New York for many years. The sign should be used at problem locations first before prohibiting RTOR.

[realjd]

I don't agree with using a red arrow over a right turn lane unless RTOR is specifically prohibited. This is consistent with the definition of a red arrow in the MUTCD. However, wording in the MUTCD allows a right turn on red arrow if another traffic control device is present that specifically permits the RTOR arrow, i.e. the "RIGHT ON RED ARROW AFTER STOP" (R10-17a) sign.

I didn't know a red arrow was defined as "no turn on red" in the MUTCD. Regardless, right turn on a red arrow is perfectly legal and expected in Florida. At least in Palm Bay (and other areas), they use them simply to indicate that it is a signal head for a right turn only lane.

It's one of the many things that people from other states don't bother to learn when they move here. School buses (don't have to stop if there's a median between you and the bus), left turn lanes (can turn into any lane, not just left-most), and hazard lights (illegal to use in fog/rain unless stopped - it's a HUGE safety issue) are other common ones.

And nobody, anywhere I've been where it's legal, seems to understand that left on red is legal on one-way streets. Orlando has signs explicitly stating that LTOR is OK at some intersections and people still don't always get it.

[Bryant5493]

So do you support 25 MPH interstate speed limits? That would save thousands upon thousands of lives, improving safety but hindering traffic flow.

Should we narrow every road down to one lane in each direction? Lots of accidents occur due to lane changes.

If we banned cars, the country would be a far, far safer place in terms of automotive collisions.

What you're talking about now is apples and oranges to what I'm talking about. 25 m.p.h. on a freeway or rural divided highway is unsafe, in and of itself. Doing that would get a lot of people killed.

I just don't understand how one can be in favor of high-speed long distance travel by car, which kills thousands of lives, but have a qualm with making said travel even more efficient by knocking off a negligible number of extra lives. Where do you draw the line? and more importantly, why do you draw it here? Why at right turns on red?

Well, I agree folks are going to die. It's the "circle of life," but this is one alternative that could help improve safety.

Keep in mind one of the reasons right turn on red exists in the first place is to cut down on unnecessary waiting at a signal, by performing a maneuver that is inherently safe when all the rules are followed. That two or three minutes is going to add up real fast, in terms of wasted fuel and increased emissions. Outlawing RTOR may also decrease capacity at intersections (especially those without a right turn lane) and may require re-timing of signal cycles to help accommodate it...considering many jurisdictions still don't have the manpower to re-time all of their signals every two years (as I believe is recommended), nor technology to run synchronized signal systems, I'd say this is pretty much not going to happen.

I know that it probably won't happen, but it's just an idea I had that should be thought about.

And nobody, anywhere I've been where it's legal, seems to understand that left on red is legal on one-way streets. Orlando has signs explicitly stating that LTOR is OK at some intersections and people still don't always get it.

Atlanta's the same way.


Be well,

Byrant

[vdeane]

left turn lanes (can turn into any lane, not just left-most), and hazard lights (illegal to use in fog/rain unless stopped - it's a HUGE safety issue) are other common ones.

I can see that working when there is only one left turn lane, but what about when there are more?  How do you make sure they don't conflict?  And what about people making right turns from the other direction?

[corco]

What you're talking about now is apples and oranges to what I'm talking about. 25 m.p.h. on a freeway or rural divided highway is unsafe, in and of itself. Doing that would get a lot of people killed.

If the speed limit were 25 and strictly enforced that would safe thousands of lives- there's no possible way to deny that, so if you truly put lives ahead of traffic flow, you would be in favor of such a measure. Banning right turns on red (which generally means that almost nobody will do right on red) would save a very negligible number of lives. That's not apples and oranges at all. The inherent statement that you care about safety more then traffic flow bothers me- any human who steps behind the wheel of a car or onto a public roadway puts themselves and others at great risk of death or injury for the improvement of efficiency and flow of their lives.

I still ask: why draw the line there? There are tons of measures that could be put in place to improve safety and hinder traffic flow. We don't enact them because as a society we value our traffic flow more than lives to an extent, and the number of lives lost because of RTOR is far, far less then things like allowing traffic to flow at more than 55 MPH or on roads with more than one lane in either direction. Why quash something that saves a ton of time but costs a negligible (and it really is negligible) amount of lives? It doesn't makes sense.

[Michael]

New York doesn't allow RTOR with a red arrow according to the driver's manual.  Here in CNY, the only time NTOR signs are used is when there is a conflicting protected turn phase.

[realjd]

I can see that working when there is only one left turn lane, but what about when there are more?  How do you make sure they don't conflict?  And what about people making right turns from the other direction?

On double left turns, the left lane turns into the left-most lane, the right lane turns into the right lane. Those are clearly marked with dashed lines through the intersection. If it's a double turn onto a 3-lane road, the right lane can turn into the center or right lane, as seen here: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=28.054282,-80.589187&spn=0.000877,0.001717&t=k&z=20

As for oncoming traffic turning right: if they're turning right on red, they have to yield to left turning traffic. If they have a green, the opposing left will have permitted green (not protected) and must yield to the right turning traffic. The big problem is when the snowbirds assume people will turn into the left lane and turn right-on-red into the path of someone turning into the right lane. Oddly enough, cars turning right ARE legally required to turn into the right-most lane, even though it isn't enforced.

[Bryant5493]

What you're talking about now is apples and oranges to what I'm talking about. 25 m.p.h. on a freeway or rural divided highway is unsafe, in and of itself. Doing that would get a lot of people killed.

If the speed limit were 25 and strictly enforced that would safe thousands of lives- there's no possible way to deny that, so if you truly put lives ahead of traffic flow, you would be in favor of such a measure. Banning right turns on red (which generally means that almost nobody will do right on red) would save a very negligible number of lives. That's not apples and oranges at all. The inherent statement that you care about safety more then traffic flow bothers me- any human who steps behind the wheel of a car or onto a public roadway puts themselves and others at great risk of death or injury for the improvement of efficiency and flow of their lives.

I still ask: why draw the line there? There are tons of measures that could be put in place to improve safety and hinder traffic flow. We don't enact them because as a society we value our traffic flow more than lives to an extent, and the number of lives lost because of RTOR is far, far less then things like allowing traffic to flow at more than 55 MPH or on roads with more than one lane in either direction. Why quash something that saves a ton of time but costs a negligible (and it really is negligible) amount of lives? It doesn't makes sense.

We just have to disagree on this. 25 m.p.h. on a freeway would just be stupid. Speed isn't a safety issue on a freeway; aggressive driving is the issue there. Someone just as easily can die at being hit at 25 m.p.h., as they could at 55 or greater. I'm not saying no RTOR is going to save every life of every pedestrain crossing the street. What I am saying is re-instituiting no RTOR can save some of those lives that wouldn't've been lost by folks failing to stop and look. Again, I know turning right on red can be done safely, as I know how to do it safely; but far too many people don't know how to do it safely.

On traffic flow, everyone's always in a rush. I admit, I'm in a rush some of the time. But if folks get going early enough, they wouldn't have to be in such of a rush. But that's neither here nor there.

Lastly, what bothers me is what you're saying is that lives lost because of pedestrians being hit isn't important.


Be well,

Bryant

[corco]

Lastly, what bothers me is what you're saying is that lives lost because of pedestrians being hit isn't important.

That's not entirely what I'm saying- I value human life to the same extent that almost everyone else on this planet does (which means I value it to the extent that it isn't detrimental to my own life/livelihood- humans are inherently selfish). Like I said, if I truly valued human life over ease of transportation, I'd be in favor of banning motorized travel entirely. We as a society accept that a lot of people are going to have to die so that we can have motorized travel. Nobody can argue otherwise, because that's simply not the case. Sure, we might vocally "fight it" by saying "let's make the roads safer," and we're all for making the roads safer to save some lives- but at the end of the day we don't act to solve the problem, we get in the car and drive. The vast, vast majority of society prioritizes the ability to have motorized travel over a few people dying.

A human life is important, but in context there is not a single person that posts on this forum that can say honestly say that they are not willing to see a few people die so that the rest of us can travel efficiently. We may not explicitly say it because it makes us feel bad, but the truth is that everytime you get behind the wheel or even sit in a car  you weigh that opportunity cost and decide that the risk of someone dying is less important than your ability to cut several minutes off your commute time. As I said, none of us would support motorized travel if we truly prioritized human lives over traffic flow, because death is an inherent and unremovable risk from that equation. People have to die so that we can have cars- if you have a problem with that you probably shouldn't drive or ride or purchase goods carried by truck.

Now, sure, on an individual level you may say "well I don't kill people when I drive," but you have to look at the broader context- getting behind the wheel makes you part of the giant aggregation of drivers, and that aggregation inherently leads to deaths.

Saving pedestrian lives in this context is important, But at the cost of massive amounts of efficiency? We'd be hypocrites to support such a measure, especially since the opportunity cost (in terms of efficiency gained:lives lost) of that is far less then that of other commonly practiced driving maneuvers, such as lane changes.

We just have to disagree on this. 25 m.p.h. on a freeway would just be stupid. Speed isn't a safety issue on a freeway; aggressive driving is the issue there. Someone just as easily can die at being hit at 25 m.p.h., as they could at 55 or greater.

What? I agree with the speed not being a safety issue if people otherwise drive intelligently, but there's no way to argue a 55 MPH head on collision (total force of 110 MPH) is just as likely to result in death then a 25 MPH head on (total force 50 MPH). That's just physics

[Bryant5493]

@corco: I can accept folks dying in constructing roads (i.e., blasting, mudslides, etc.); freak accidents, like a wheel popping off of a van, crossing several lanes of a freeway and hopping median, and then hitting someone's car window (this actually happened in DeKalb County, Georgia earlier this year); or through their own stupidity (drivers cutting in and out of traffic, tailgaiting; or peds jaywalking). But if a traffic death can be prevented, I say do what you can to do so.


Be well,

Bryant

[corco]

@corco: I can accept folks dying in constructing roads (i.e., blasting, mudslides, etc.); freak accidents, like a wheel popping off of a van, crossing several lanes of a freeway and hopping median, and then hitting someone's car window (this actually happened in DeKalb County, Georgia earlier this year); or through their own stupidity (drivers cutting in and out of traffic, tailgaiting; or peds jaywalking). But if a traffic death can be prevented, I say do what you can to do so.

Yes, and we can prevent ALL innocent traffic deaths by getting rid of motorized vehicles entirely. Why wouldn't you be in favor of that? Is the pedestrian crossing at red somehow worth more to you then the innocent person driving down a multi-lane road who gets plowed into by an 18-wheeler changing lanes who doesn't pay attention?

[Bryant5493]

^^ I wouldn't agree to getting rid of all motorized vehicles entirely, because I love to drive. And getting rid of all motorized vehicles isn't going to prevent ALL traffic deaths and it's something that isn't feasible or realistic.

Be well,

Bryant

[corco]

^^ I wouldn't agree to getting rid of all motorized vehicles entirely, because I love to drive. And getting rid of all motorized vehicles isn't going to prevent ALL traffic deaths and it's something that isn't feasible or realistic.

Now I'm curious- how would getting rid of all motorized vehicles not prevent all traffic deaths? There wouldn't be any traffic!

So you're OK with innocent people dying through no fault of their own, but only to an extent? There's nothing wrong with that- I think most people would agree with that.  I still don't get why you draw the line here.

Even laws that support safety also support efficiency- for instance we have stop signs at intersections not only because it would cost a ton in human life to not do so, but there would also be constant carnage in the intersection which would take time to clear if we didn't have them, slowing things up. Unlike a missing stop sign, where we'd all just cross our fingers and hope we didn't get t-boned and likely would very frequently, so few people die because of RTOR relative to the millions upon millions of such turns made every year that I just don't see how you weigh the opportunity cost so that this makes sense.

I honestly can't think of an existing traffic law (beyond some ill-advised speed limits that do neither) that doesn't simultaneously improve public safety and efficiency (efficiency being acquired because deaths would be so great if the law didn't exist that there'd constantly be wreckage to be cleared, causing traffic jams). RTOR would improve safety, but at great cost to efficiency.

[mightyace]

@corco

Let's turn this around.

How much time does allowing Right Turn on Red allow?

If you drive around strictly at 1am in the morning or in places like Wyoming, maybe quite a bit. 

During high traffic times, I can't count the number of times some idiot has made a right turn on red in front of me and I have to hit the brakes to avoid rear ending him.  I don't think that helps traffic flow.

So, please show me some data as to how much time allowing ROTR saves.

And, for me anyway, I'm not sure the time saved equals the mental wear and tear from watching a busy cross highway to see if you can turn.  You might say, "Then don't turn."  But, then, I have the equally aggravating stress of wondering what the yo-yo behind me will do because I'm not turning "when I can."  If there was no turn on red, I can calmly wait for the light to change.

[corco]

Let's turn this around.

How much time does allowing Right Turn on Red allow?

If you drive around strictly at 1am in the morning or in places like Wyoming, maybe quite a bit.

During high traffic times, I can't count the number of times some idiot has made a right turn on red in front of me and I have to hit the brakes to avoid rear ending him.  I don't think that helps traffic flow.

So, please show me some data as to how much time allowing ROTR saves.

And, for me anyway, I'm not sure the time saved equals the mental wear and tear from watching a busy cross highway to see if you can turn.  You might say, "Then don't turn."  But, then, I have the equally aggravating stress of wondering what the yo-yo behind me will do because I'm not turning "when I can."  If there was no turn on red, I can calmly wait for the light to change.

Okey doke- I certainly can see where it may make sense to dump it in certain places, but a blanket ban? That does hurt those of us who drive at 1 in the morning and in places like Wyoming.

The burden isn't on me to provide data- that always falls on the one attempting to modify the status quo, which allows right turns on red. In this case it's up to the person saying "let's get rid of right turns on red" (which would be Bryant, or potentially you) to provide the data. So I'll flip that football back to you- you show me some data that says right turns on red are bad, and then I'll counter with data. Show me a rant that says "we should ban right turns on red because of [unsubstantiated claim]" and I'll counter with more unsubstantiated claims. But the burden of proof falls squarely on the one trying to modify the status quo.

[mightyace]

^^^

Well, I can't because me evidence is limited to me and anecdotal.


And, maybe you don't "have" to show it because it is the status quo.

I'd like to see some hard data about time savings versus lives risked so I can make an informed decision.

I agree it's good in some places and time, but I would like some objective data from someone, anyone on this subject.  I can live with things either way.

But, with no facts on either side, this thread is mainly a p***ing contest between corco and Bryant5493.

[corco]

I think it's a little more than a pissing match- we've established that there's a certain as you say "time savings versus lives risked" equation that has to be weighed. But you're correct- we shouldn't just rant back and forth like this- it's amusing for me, but unproductive (but let's be honest, a giant proportion of threads involving policy proposals are based on unsubstantiated claims on this forum- maybe that's something to consider actively trying to change (and maybe why many of them end up locked)? I'll work harder not to) .

Anyway burdens aside, to the google machine!

Here's a good one from the NHTSA that says you could drive to Jupiter and back before being involved in a crash from a red-light on red.
Summary- Study (PDF)

Here's another one, it's a bit dated from 1982 but states that accidents go up 14% by legalizing it, but it's still really rare
(PDF)

Here's one that recommends banning it, but without data and as more of a "Save the children" plea
Study (PDF)

Here's another one- 21% of motorists violate it when it's illegal, 1% of turns involve a conflict (not an accident, a conflict)- which is significant, but I'm not sure if that's significant enough
Study (not PDF)

Here's a bit more on what you were looking for- showing a 5% decrease in delay for half of all cars trying to turn, ranging up to 78% which is significant as well
Study (not PDF)

I don't have time to crunch that all together at the moment, but it seems to indicate that their presence doesn't matter that much and does increase efficiency while providing little actual threat to pedestrians

[mightyace]

^^^

Thank you very much.  I don't have the time to go through them now, but I do want to read them as soon as I can.

[The Premier]

What you're talking about now is apples and oranges to what I'm talking about. 25 m.p.h. on a freeway or rural divided highway is unsafe, in and of itself. Doing that would get a lot of people killed.

If the speed limit were 25 and strictly enforced that would safe thousands of lives- there's no possible way to deny that, so if you truly put lives ahead of traffic flow, you would be in favor of such a measure. Banning right turns on red (which generally means that almost nobody will do right on red) would save a very negligible number of lives. That's not apples and oranges at all. The inherent statement that you care about safety more then traffic flow bothers me- any human who steps behind the wheel of a car or onto a public roadway puts themselves and others at great risk of death or injury for the improvement of efficiency and flow of their lives.

I still ask: why draw the line there? There are tons of measures that could be put in place to improve safety and hinder traffic flow. We don't enact them because as a society we value our traffic flow more than lives to an extent, and the number of lives lost because of RTOR is far, far less then things like allowing traffic to flow at more than 55 MPH or on roads with more than one lane in either direction. Why quash something that saves a ton of time but costs a negligible (and it really is negligible) amount of lives? It doesn't makes sense.

Keep in mind that speed itself doesn't kill. The DIFFERENCE in speed does. Ohio SR 8 is a big example. There is always competition between those doing the legal limit (in this case 55 mph) and those doing the recommended limit (65 to 70+ mph). As an end result, accidents are bound to occur, and in some cases, can be fatal.

Unfortunately, a uniform speed limit will not work because there are people that will speed at a reasonable level regardless of speed limit posted. That was the case when the speed limit was 55 mph.

As far as RTOR is concerned, it should only be prohibited in cases in which such turns would be unsafe. Prohibiting RTOR at a school zone during restricted hours is one example.

[Bryant5493]

It's not a pissing match, but there's a bit of hyperbole involved. I'm stating my point of view concerning my experiences with folks who can't turn right on red; it's not just one or two folks -- it's several.

RTOR would improve safety, but at great cost to efficiency.

Well, I've seen lots of folks turning right on red who block an already packed intersection, so I guess that's efficiency for you.

The whole point of the thread was "food for thought": nothing more, nothing less.


Be well,

Bryant

[vdeane]

Bryant, I'm guessing there are a lot of intersections in your area that allow RTOR when they shouldn't (or at least not during the day).  If that's the case, the solution is to ban RTOR at those intersections.  Those of us that live in areas where it works shouldn't have to suffer under your blanket ban.  Even during the day you can see substantial time savings, especially in places that still use timed signals(like the majority of upstate NY).  I can count the number of times people turning has caused a problem (only one of which involved a red light), but I can't count the number of times a light has been red when there was no traffic on the cross street.

[Bryant5493]

^^ Yeah, under the current system, I agree, prohibiting RTOR everywhere wouldn't work.


Be well,

Bryant