Should Cities Help Drivers Hit Green Lights All the Time?

[Brandon]

Exactly.  Permissive-only on high traffic roads is even more annoying than protected-only when there's a gap in traffic.

If left turns are needed, then the signals should be protective-permissive, IMHO.  I'd prefer to avoid having left turns off major roads though, instead using things such as the Michigan Left or the jughandle.

[agentsteel53]

then again, if you want to talk about the worst left turns in the country, try San Francisco.

there are certain intersections where lefts are forbidden.  the only way to make a left is to make either a right-left-left, or a left-right-left, starting one block prior.  in either case, that final left turn will be onto the arterial that was originally forbidden: except now you have no protection at all, and no guarantees of ever seeing a break in traffic. 

why not make three right turns?  go look up Park Presidio southbound at Fulton.  I'd provide a link except Google Maps decided to self-annihilate, going from a useful tool, to an instant browser crash.

[NE2]

why not make three right turns?  go look up Park Presidio southbound at Fulton.

That's a little weird. If I were planning it in advance, I'd go Balboa-14th-Cabrillo-10th. Other somewhat reasonable possibilities would be Crossover (coming out on Fulton 11.5 blocks west) or Cabrillo-18th (coming out 4.5 blocks west).

Or I'd turn right onto Fulton's north-side sidewalk and cross Fulton at the crosswalk

[agentsteel53]

does 10th have a signal with Fulton?

that said, "planning it in advance" is not universally a feasible proposition.  sometimes... you just get there and that's just that.

[NE2]

does 10th have a signal with Fulton?

Yes, I checked.

Ideally there'd be signs posted, like at jughandles in New Jersey (even where city streets are used.)

[Pete from Boston]

Every single time I'm stuck waiting at the intersection for two minutes to make the turn while there is hardly any oncoming traffic.

Do you really always get there in the same part of the cycle?

Good question; I'm really not sure.  It does vary a little, but if I hit the light on a Saturday or Sunday as I usually do, I almost always have to wait a while.  It's better during the week.  It's a three phase signal, with two short phases for traffic turning left to/from the Thruway (right turning traffic has ramps - if you added a jughandle, it would be an at-grade trumpet) and one very long green for through traffic on Super 365.  My only guess is that Turning Stone has something to do with it.

^It sounds like you are unwilling to acknowledge that an increased intersection crash rate would be a negative consequence of permissive-lefts.  Based on your comments, you are disregarding safety and focused entirely on reducing driver delay.  You almost seem to be suggesting that when bad drivers get in an accident, that's somehow a good thing.

I don't think we should delay drivers to subsidize bad driving... IMO we could accomplish a goal of reducing crashes much better by increasing licensing standards.

There's no question on the driver's test for hubris, haste, or self-importance, which are the real issue. At least aroud here, it's usually a game of chicken more than a judgement of clear right of way.  Someone turns left and decides oncoming traffic will just have to slow/stop rather than hit them.  I know people who intentionally don't slow down when confronted with this  -- the game of chicken often has more than one willing actor involved.

The game of chicken should be outlawed and drivers caught playing it should face very stiff penalties.  I have no problem with getting rid of the "make your own ROW" culture that plagues many areas.

Is there an economist in the house?  Where is the margin of disutility of enforcement?  In other words, at what point is the cost of ensuring compliance too great for society to accept given the results?

Since you take aim at the cultural issue, the culture of "make your own ROW" here seems to stem from the usual issues of volume of actors in a fluid system that makes transgression with impunity common. 

In other words, as the kids say, they won't catch everyone, and they can't flunk the whole class.

The bigger issue seems to be a general cultural disregard for rules.  Granted, the Brattons and Giulianis of the world can, over decades, nudge a society into marginally better behavior, but not without costs and ethical decisions that not everyone is ok with.

Anyway, this is a lot to bring into looking at something like jumping out in front of traffic to make a left, but I live in one of those areas "plagued," as you put it, with that wild-west belief that if you follow every rule you'll never get anywhere.  So far there hasn't been enough will or societal capital so far to penalize that motivation. 

[tradephoric]

Anyway, this is a lot to bring into looking at something like jumping out in front of traffic to make a left, but I live in one of those areas "plagued," as you put it, with that wild-west belief that if you follow every rule you'll never get anywhere.  So far there hasn't been enough will or societal capital so far to penalize that motivation. 

Somewhat to your point, a study was done by the Minnesota Department of Transportation that found there was no long term safety benefits for increasing the all-red clearance interval.  Drivers may be more willing to run a red light if they know the signal has a long red clearance.  Instead of reducing the accident rate, increasing the red clearance may just increase the probability that a driver will run a red light (at least long-term). 

Driver's regulate themselves to a point.

The use of a red clearance interval is optional, and there is no consensus on its application or duration. Recent research has indicated that the use of a red clearance interval showed some benefit to the reduction of red-light-running violations. In these studies, there was a significant reduction in right-angle crashes after implementing a red clearance interval. Other research suggests that this reduction may only be temporary. A comprehensive study of long-term effects for the Minnesota Department of Transportation ()11, indicated short-term reductions in crash rates were achieved (approximately one year after the implementation), but long-term reductions were not observed, which implies that there may not be safety benefits associated with increased red clearance intervals.

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08024/chapter5.htm

[Pete from Boston]

That's interesting.  I'm sure it's been discussed in these forums that there's a movement that asserts that the safest traffic regulation is self-policing and most signals should be removed.  I have a dim view of the likely results, but it's an intriguing idea.

[agentsteel53]

That's interesting.  I'm sure it's been discussed in these forums that there's a movement that asserts that the safest traffic regulation is self-policing and most signals should be removed.  I have a dim view of the likely results, but it's an intriguing idea.

I feel like the photos I've seen of "insanely heavy traffic" in places like India and Cambodia is due to this very experiment being run.

[jeffandnicole]

That's interesting.  I'm sure it's been discussed in these forums that there's a movement that asserts that the safest traffic regulation is self-policing and most signals should be removed.  I have a dim view of the likely results, but it's an intriguing idea.

That works well in small groups when everyone is achieving the same goal, especially when there's good communication, or everyone knows what their requirements are to reach that same goal.

In a large, undefined group, which the potential population is every living person, which includes people without licenses, not of age, and can't understand signs, languages, symbols, etc, Self-Policing isn't going to work that well, especially at large intersections.  Also especially when people are in their own vehicles, which tends to allow them to be more aggressive or do things they wouldn't normally do.

[1995hoo]

That's interesting.  I'm sure it's been discussed in these forums that there's a movement that asserts that the safest traffic regulation is self-policing and most signals should be removed.  I have a dim view of the likely results, but it's an intriguing idea.

I recall some news articles a few years back about an intersection in the UK where there was a plan to try that. I do not recall ever seeing any follow-up reports about whether it was actually done or, more importantly, how it worked out.

Having seen what happens around here when a power failure knocks out the traffic lights (a majority of drivers brazenly ignore the "all-way stop" law), I rather doubt eliminating all traffic control devices like traffic lights and stop signs would work well.

[vdeane]

We could get rid of traffic control devices and employ women to direct traffic:

[mrsman]

does 10th have a signal with Fulton?

Yes, I checked.

Ideally there'd be signs posted, like at jughandles in New Jersey (even where city streets are used.)

Ideally, there should be signs that dictate how to make this left turn using side streets, but sometimes you just have to know your way around town.

I find it even harder when there are time limited turn restrictions, where it's even less likely that automated directions will help you around.  And if you typically pass through the corner at off-hours, you have to learn a new way when you are going by there at rush hour.