Right on Red

[Bruce]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".

We should invent drivers who will follow those signs. Self-driving cars may come to bite us in the butt as they will follow laws as intended, in a bit of schadenfreude.

[1995hoo]

Also, why are they impossible to fight? Just tell them you weren't the driver.

Worth noting that this is not a valid defense in every jurisdiction that has cameras. In NY, a ticket from a red light or speed camera is legally equivalent to a parking ticket and the registered owner of the vehicle is liable regardless of who was driving.

....

Some jurisdictions require you to rat out the person who was driving so they can re-issue the ticket.

[paulthemapguy]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".

This.  This all day.

[AlexandriaVA]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".

This.  This all day.

People disobey the signs. All day. I see it all over where I live.

[7/8]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".

This.  This all day.

People disobey the signs. All day. I see it all over where I live.

The "No right on red" signs on the Highway 8 off-ramp to Fairway Rd in Kitchener are commonly ignored (this GSV screenshot below clearly shows three signs). The signs are there because there are two right turn lanes, not to mention a lot of people run the red on Fairway. But that doesn't stop people in the rightmost lane from turning anyway.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4244968,-80.4348235,3a,37.5y,152.04h,84.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shq2q3MjmSxfj6c4txSnF3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[AlexandriaVA]

Of course they did. Everyone always has an excuse for why they did a rolling "stop" (aka slowing down, not stopping), or just outright blasting through it.

Just this morning I had to lay on the horn because some pickup with a trailer full of lawn equipment RTOR'd into the lane that I had the green light for.

[paulthemapguy]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".

This.  This all day.

People disobey the signs. All day. I see it all over where I live.

Well, unless you want us to live in a totalitarian police state, what's the point of bringing this up?  We can't physically force people to stop turning right if they insist on doing so.  Unless you want to install gates everywhere.  This disobedience probably occurs more frequently in densely populated areas, because managing your way through the crowds is difficult and frustrating enough already.  And making right-turn-on-red entirely legal isn't going to stop people, either.

[froggie]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".

As you're probably aware but choosing to ignore, most traffic engineers still consider the car as "king" and everyone else plays second fiddle, despite the safety benefits to non-vehicular users of some of these measures.  Furthermore, Bruce is completely correct in that, far too many times, drivers will pull into and block the sidewalk.

[AlexandriaVA]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".

This.  This all day.

People disobey the signs. All day. I see it all over where I live.

Well, unless you want us to live in a totalitarian police state, what's the point of bringing this up?  We can't physically force people to stop turning right if they insist on doing so.  Unless you want to install gates everywhere.  This disobedience probably occurs more frequently in densely populated areas, because managing your way through the crowds is difficult and frustrating enough already.  And making right-turn-on-red entirely legal isn't going to stop people, either.

As usual, RTOR arguments here end up with the logic of "I'm inconvenienced by waiting and it's hard to enforce, so let's just allow it all the time everywhere".

I wonder how many "law and order" types conveniently ignore the traffic laws which inconvenience them.

[Brandon]

Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.

Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".

This.  This all day.

People disobey the signs. All day. I see it all over where I live.

Well, unless you want us to live in a totalitarian police state, what's the point of bringing this up?  We can't physically force people to stop turning right if they insist on doing so.  Unless you want to install gates everywhere.  This disobedience probably occurs more frequently in densely populated areas, because managing your way through the crowds is difficult and frustrating enough already.  And making right-turn-on-red entirely legal isn't going to stop people, either.

As usual, RTOR arguments here end up with the logic of "I'm inconvenienced by waiting and it's hard to enforce, so let's just allow it all the time everywhere".

I wonder how many "law and order" types conveniently ignore the traffic laws which inconvenience them.

Yawn.

[AlexandriaVA]

I guess in flyover country, stop signs are suggestions and yield signs are target practice?

[paulthemapguy]

I wonder how many "law and order" types conveniently ignore the traffic laws which inconvenience them.

I have no idea what this even means.  Are "law and order" types the people who want anarchy or absolutism?  I can't even discern the nature of the straw man you're trying to build lol.  I wasn't advocating for anarchy or absolutism in this case...I just like that there are signs that say No Turn on Red when engineers deem it too dangerous to do so.  And I understand that, in a given instance, a pertinent law won't necessarily change a person's behavior.

[jeffandnicole]

I wonder how many "law and order" types conveniently ignore the traffic laws which inconvenience them.

I have no idea what this even means.  Are "law and order" types the people who want anarchy or absolutism?  I can't even discern the nature of the straw man you're trying to build lol.

I think he's talking about people like the guy in my carpool.  He will complain about someone that turned right on red where it's prohibited...while he's going 10 mph over the limit, because "everyone else is doing it".  Or how he wants a safety gap in front of him and complains that people pull in front of him.  He complains by throwing his arms up in the air...letting go of the steering wheel.  And then he cuts over at the last minute to get to his exit, using that 'safety zone' that someone has in front from them.

[epzik8]

Has anyone ever accidentally made a right on red at an intersection that specifically states "no right on red"? I haven't, but back in 2006 during a day trip to Philadelphia (my family and I live in the Baltimore, Maryland area which is full of RORs) my mom made a right on a red light after stopping, and then she said "Oh shucks! There was a sign that said 'no right on red'." Luckily she didn't get in trouble.

Also, something that really annoys me is that cars in front of and behind me turning right on a red light almost never stop before turning. I seem to be the only one who actually stops first. One of the most important things I learned in driver's ed is that red always means stop. It's especially important to stop before making that right turn if there's oncoming traffic.

[Brandon]

I wonder how many "law and order" types conveniently ignore the traffic laws which inconvenience them.

I have no idea what this even means.  Are "law and order" types the people who want anarchy or absolutism?  I can't even discern the nature of the straw man you're trying to build lol.  I wasn't advocating for anarchy or absolutism in this case...I just like that there are signs that say No Turn on Red when engineers deem it too dangerous to do so.  And I understand that, in a given instance, a pertinent law won't necessarily change a person's behavior.

He's bitching about RTOR and the ignorance of such signs by folks who complain about other violations of the law.  Like I said, to quote another member of this forum, "yawn".  He's probably throwing a rock here when he himself lives in a glass house.

[AlexandriaVA]

I'm not a perfect driver, but I also don't willingly ignore road signs just because I think I'm smarter than the engineer who decided to put them in place, or I think a particular regulation is dumb.

[vdeane]

Except road signs are VERY often put in place on the order of politicians, not engineers.

Incidentally, when I say I'm not against rolling stops for right on red, I'm talking about where someone slows like they're stopping and looks around but just so happens to still have 2mph or so on the speedomoeter instead of 0 when they determine it's safe to go... NOT just blowing through at normal turning velocity.  Basically, fulfilling the spirit of the law, though not the letter of the law.  I absolutely agree that the people who ignore even the concept of stopping when making a right on red are an issue.

Incidentally, not all traffic laws are equal.  While a very large number of speed limits are underposted (at least in the northeast), no turn on red usually has a good reason (though I think automatically blocking it if there's more than one right turn lane is a bit much... right on red with multiple turn lanes works fine in NY).

One thing that I just thought of is that, when right on red was made the default, pedestrian curb ramps were usually done one per corner on a diagonal to serve two crosswalks.  These days, that's discouraged, due to the impacts on safety and people with disabilities.  The result is that crosswalks are often further back than they were in the past, resulting in fewer places where one can safely turn right on red and still stay behind the stop line.  It's possible that right on red would not have been made an automatic default if the issue were debated today.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm not a perfect driver, but I also don't willingly ignore road signs just because I think I'm smarter than the engineer who decided to put them in place, or I think a particular regulation is dumb.

Most people don't.  But this is how it often looks:

When I do it: "It was a mistake".

When someone does it: "They're an idiot".

Perspective means a lot.  So when I'm making that mistake, someone else is looking at me thinking I'm the idiot.

Also, if you do something wrong, you may not even realize it.  Say you never saw the NTOR sign.  How'd you know you messed up?  So while you may have accidently made a mistake, you don't actually know it was a mistake.  In the meantime, the guy behind you?  He think's your an idiot.

[7/8]

Incidentally, not all traffic laws are equal.  While a very large number of speed limits are underposted (at least in the northeast), no turn on red usually has a good reason (though I think automatically blocking it if there's more than one right turn lane is a bit much... right on red with multiple turn lanes works fine in NY).

For the example I posted, Fairway Rd has three lanes when you make your right turn, so the middle lane on Fairway Rd is a potential conflict. Though I guess you could argue that this would still be a problem during the green right-turn phase

In NY's case, how many lanes are on the road being turned on to? Because if there's only 2 lanes in each direction, then the problem I mentioned wouldn't be relevant.

[US 41]

As you're probably aware but choosing to ignore, most traffic engineers still consider the car as "king" and everyone else plays second fiddle, despite the safety benefits to non-vehicular users of some of these measures.  Furthermore, Bruce is completely correct in that, far too many times, drivers will pull into and block the sidewalk.

IMO that's the way it should be. The people driving the cars are the ones after all paying the taxes for all the facilities along the roads. I think walkers should wait on traffic to clear first before crossing. You shouldn't have to sit and wait on walkers to take their sweet time getting across the street. I'll be honest. I stop at the stop line and then creep up and block the walk ways. If you don't you can't see to make a RTOR.

[vdeane]

Incidentally, not all traffic laws are equal.  While a very large number of speed limits are underposted (at least in the northeast), no turn on red usually has a good reason (though I think automatically blocking it if there's more than one right turn lane is a bit much... right on red with multiple turn lanes works fine in NY).

For the example I posted, Fairway Rd has three lanes when you make your right turn, so the middle lane on Fairway Rd is a potential conflict. Though I guess you could argue that this would still be a problem during the green right-turn phase

In NY's case, how many lanes are on the road being turned on to? Because if there's only 2 lanes in each direction, then the problem I mentioned wouldn't be relevant.

I don't know if we have anything with more than two right turn lanes; at the very least, it would be very rare.  Usually it's two right turn lanes onto a road with two lanes in that direction (though I know of one where the road has three lanes in that direction).

[Duke87]

Furthermore, Bruce is completely correct in that, far too many times, drivers will pull into and block the sidewalk.

Often this is necessary because there are not sufficient sight lines for a driver to see whether there is a gap in traffic they can turn right into from behind the crosswalk. And this issue is not limited to signalized intersections, around where I live drivers block crosswalks (both marked and unmarked) at stop signs all the time for the same reason - you physically cannot, from behind the stop line, see enough to determine that it is safe to proceed because your view from back there is obstructed by parked vehicles, buildings, bushes, etc.

That said, I don't think this is really a big deal despite it being nominally contrary to how the book says you're supposed to do it. When I am walking and encounter a vehicle that is waiting in the crosswalk to proceed through the intersection, I simply walk behind it. This way I am both not impeding their progress and not putting myself in a position where I may get hit, while at the same time not suffering any significant inconvenience or increased risk from other hazards. Meanwhile as a driver I expect that entering the crosswalk at a non-four-way stop or when preparing to turn right on red will, even if not 100% necessary for line of sight reasons, prevent pedestrians from walking in front of me and therefore reduce the risk of a collision occurring. Unless, of course, I see a pedestrian entering the crosswalk before I get to it in which case they have the right of way and can go first.

Except road signs are VERY often put in place on the order of politicians, not engineers.

Yes. A reason why many of them are often nonsensical - they are placed for the emotional appeasement of people who complained about something, not for rational utilitarian purposes.

One thing that I just thought of is that, when right on red was made the default, pedestrian curb ramps were usually done one per corner on a diagonal to serve two crosswalks.  These days, that's discouraged, due to the impacts on safety and people with disabilities.  The result is that crosswalks are often further back than they were in the past, resulting in fewer places where one can safely turn right on red and still stay behind the stop line.  It's possible that right on red would not have been made an automatic default if the issue were debated today.

Possible? I'd go with guaranteed. With today's paranoia about safety something like RTOR would be too scary for people to even consider were it not already an established norm.

[Sam]

physically cannot, from behind the stop line, see enough to determine that it is safe to proceed because your view from back there is obstructed by parked vehicles, buildings, bushes, etc.

pedestrian entering the crosswalk before I get to it in which case they have the right of way and can go .

My Driver Ed teacher taught us you stop before the stop line or crosswalk, then if no peds are crossing you creep up until you can see if it's safe to enter. That made perfect sense to me as it satisfies the law and common sense, so that's how I do it.

[jakeroot]

Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".

We should invent drivers who will follow those signs. Self-driving cars may come to bite us in the butt as they will follow laws as intended, in a bit of schadenfreude.

One thing that I just thought of is that, when right on red was made the default, pedestrian curb ramps were usually done one per corner on a diagonal to serve two crosswalks.  These days, that's discouraged, due to the impacts on safety and people with disabilities.  The result is that crosswalks are often further back than they were in the past, resulting in fewer places where one can safely turn right on red and still stay behind the stop line.  It's possible that right on red would not have been made an automatic default if the issue were debated today.

Compared to some countries, we still place the stop line relatively close to the intersection. Places like the UK (which don't permit the equivalent movement) place the stop line rather far back from the "box" of the junction (note the example image below). This is for several reasons, I assume: 1) visibility from the stop line is not important, 2) crosswalks are usually perpendicular to the carriageway, so at slightly askew junctions, the crosswalk (and thus the stop line) can be set very far back from the intersection, and 3) bike boxes are, more and more often, painted in front of stop lines, but behind the crosswalk. This means that, to turn left on red, one would need to drive through both a bike box and a crosswalk.

Why does this matter? The US places its stop line right on top of the crosswalk (in places like California and Oregon, the first line of the crosswalk is the stop line). This makes it, frankly, way too easy to turn on red. If we made it, geometrically, more awkward for drivers to turn on red, they might be more likely to obey any posted "no turn on red sign".

[Bruce]

Just saying that if policing is a problem, there's always things like railroad crossing gates to really force people to stop on red. But then the drivers would try to speed under.

The only solution is to have a heavy wall of traffic that prevents them from even daring to do so in the first place.