Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Turns on red and the effect

Expand Messages
  • turpin
    ... I must confess I don t grok this issue. In all my years and many thousands of miles of pedestrian travel, I don t recall a problem because of cars turning
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In carfree_cities@y..., "jusjih" <jusjih@h...> wrote:
      > Most of the world tends to prohibit right turns and
      > left turns on red lights. Though it may waste time
      > and energy, it is usually safer to pedestrians and
      > bikers.

      I must confess I don't grok this issue. In all my years and many
      thousands of miles of pedestrian travel, I don't recall a problem
      because of cars turning right on red. Yeah, I understand that a car
      turning right on red can run down a pedestrian. So can a car turning
      right on green! As a pedestrian, I find that the second is a more
      common problem. The car with the green light drives past you as
      you're about to enter the crosswalk, and then turns, expecting that
      YOU are the one supposed to yield. The cars with a red light, the
      cars that are already stopped, are not nearly so likely to run you
      down.

      I'm not saying that a driver turning right on red never endangers a
      pedestrian. Regardless of the driving maneuver, there are some
      drivers who do poorly at watching for pedestrians and yielding to
      them. That's a general problem, and not one that can be solved by
      eliminating one driving maneuver. Should we ban cars from backing out
      of their driveway? I've had several drivers almost hit me doing that.

      I can imagine cities or intersections where turning right on red is a
      particular problem. Generally, though, I don't see understand why I,
      as a pedestrian, should be concerned about it. And I walk a lot. If I
      were to list the top ten things that concern me as a pedestrian,
      right turn on red would not even be in the running.

      > Permitting turns on red may encourage more
      > use of private cars in the US and Canada, and
      > it may be against the moves to car-free cities.

      Well, yeah, in some sense, ANY additional rule or impediment to car
      travel discourages it. But I think that is a poor argument for just
      any rule. As a strategy for creating a car-free city, I think it is
      doomed to failure. You're not going to get rid of cars in any city by
      hodge-podge rules to make them less convenient. As a pedestrian in a
      city where there are many cars, I don't want drivers to be
      ARBITRARILY inconvenienced. That makes me LESS safe, not more! I want
      rules and street design that are pedestrian friendly. And you don't
      get that just by inconveniencing drivers.
    • billt44hk
      These newsclips of Bush on the golf course talking tough about Iraq to the worlds press then hopping into a golf cart. Is the inability to play a round of golf
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 10, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        These newsclips of Bush on the golf course talking tough about Iraq
        to the worlds press then hopping into a golf cart. Is the inability
        to play a round of golf without the aid of a motor car normal
        behaviour? How long has this been going on? I seem to have a
        distant memory of the hilarity with which we kids in Scotland
        (watching the British Movietone News in the cinema) greeted the sight
        of Americans playing golf out of little cars. Maybe that was
        Eisenhower, or Kennedy? What wimps they seemed to us then. Who, I
        wonder was the last President with the balls to walk the course?

        BillT
      • Louis-Luc
        ... The real problem is bad drivers. THEY should be eliminated, at first. If a driver endangers a pedestrian (or another road user) for *any* reason
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 10, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > I'm not saying that a driver turning right on red never endangers a
          > pedestrian. Regardless of the driving maneuver, there are some
          > drivers who do poorly at watching for pedestrians and yielding to
          > them. That's a general problem, and not one that can be solved by
          > eliminating one driving maneuver. Should we ban cars from backing out
          > of their driveway? I've had several drivers almost hit me doing that.

          The real problem is bad drivers. THEY should be eliminated, at first. If a
          driver endangers a pedestrian (or another road user) for *any* reason
          whatsoever, his license must be automatically revoked. He proved using his
          car to harm someone else, so he've just used it for the last time (for a
          very long period if no accident, and forever if he caused an accident
          harming or killing someone).

          Knowing that rule exists for all motorists, then they will be forced to
          drive correctly, and carfree road users will feel safe, almost as safe as if
          they would travel in a carfree area.

          Talking about right turns on green, I've had to bang a car at several
          occasions with my stick to let the driver know he's wrong doing that.

          Usually, when I'm approaching a crosswalk, I tend to walk to the left of the
          sidewalk (or even shifting a bit into the street) to reduce the turning
          radius of any eventual turning car. I accelerate to show I intend to walk
          through the crosswalk. I slow down just before the crosswalk. If the light
          is red, I stop steps ahead into the crosswalk, holding my stick down in
          front of me. If I see either a green light or walk signal and there is no
          carfree traffic in front of me, I wave my stick up as I walk, so if a car
          dare trying to cut me, it gets struck.

          >
          > I can imagine cities or intersections where turning right on red is a
          > particular problem. Generally, though, I don't see understand why I,
          > as a pedestrian, should be concerned about it. And I walk a lot. If I
          > were to list the top ten things that concern me as a pedestrian,
          > right turn on red would not even be in the running.
          >
          > > Permitting turns on red may encourage more
          > > use of private cars in the US and Canada, and
          > > it may be against the moves to car-free cities.
          >
          > Well, yeah, in some sense, ANY additional rule or impediment to car
          > travel discourages it. But I think that is a poor argument for just
          > any rule. As a strategy for creating a car-free city, I think it is
          > doomed to failure. You're not going to get rid of cars in any city by
          > hodge-podge rules to make them less convenient. As a pedestrian in a
          > city where there are many cars, I don't want drivers to be
          > ARBITRARILY inconvenienced. That makes me LESS safe, not more! I want
          > rules and street design that are pedestrian friendly. And you don't
          > get that just by inconveniencing drivers.

          I agree good street designs is a nice solution.

          How about putting some bumps a 45 degree angles at each street corners to
          force drivers to stop before turning? Speeding turns are eliminated, but
          that way we could afford permitting right turns on red light. No matter the
          color of the light, all turning cars must stop completely, wait that no one
          is using or about to enter the crosswalk in front or to the right (depending
          on the color of the light), before slowly turning right.

          Louis-Luc
        • J.H. Crawford
          ... Traffic engineers have finally figured out that all you have to do is to go back to the old, sharp corner radius, which was universal until fairly
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 11, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Louis-Luc said:

            >How about putting some bumps a 45 degree angles at each street corners to
            >force drivers to stop before turning? Speeding turns are eliminated, but
            >that way we could afford permitting right turns on red light. No matter the
            >color of the light, all turning cars must stop completely, wait that no one
            >is using or about to enter the crosswalk in front or to the right (depending
            >on the color of the light), before slowly turning right.

            Traffic engineers have finally figured out that all you have to
            do is to go back to the old, sharp corner radius, which was
            universal until fairly recently. This forces cars to slow to
            a crawl when cornering.

            Further, on the subject of right-turn-on-red, one of the increased risks
            is that the driver turning right on red has to look left for cars coming
            at him (the serious risk for the driver) while also being supposed to
            make sure that there isn't anyone crossing the street (on the right).
            It is simply not possible to keep a good eye on both right and left
            at the same time. It is for this reason that right turn on red will
            always be a risk for pedestrians and should be eliminated. And since the
            DRIVER's risk is from the left, it's the pedestrian who only gets a quick
            glance (if that).

            Regards,



            -- ### --

            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
            mailbox@... Carfree.com
          • C M Bruce
            ... I would not recommend doing that in the U.S. If you damage the car, the courts will make you pay for it. Even if you damage a car that frightens you by
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 12, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Louis-Luc wrote:
              >Talking about right turns on green, I've had to bang a car at several
              >occasions with my stick to let the driver know he's wrong doing that.

              I would not recommend doing that in the U.S. If you damage the car, the courts will make you pay for it. Even if you damage a car that frightens you by almost running you down. We know from sad experience.

              As long as a car does not actually injure a pedestrian, drivers are allowed to do anything they wish. Unfortunately, it appears that the rules are not enforced and apparently will not be enforced in the U.S.

              Carol




              __________________________________________________________
              Win a First Class Trip to Hawaii to Vacation Elvis Style!
              http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes
            • Erik Rauch
              An interesting statistic from the US Department of Transportation: 2000 vehicles per hour sound twice as loud as 200 vehicles per hour . In other words, if
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 18, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                An interesting statistic from the US Department of Transportation:

                "2000 vehicles per hour sound twice as loud as 200 vehicles per hour".

                In other words, if you start with an empty road, the first cars that you
                "add" to this road contribute much more to perceived noise than additional
                cars. Or, alternately, the last cars that you would remove from a road are
                responsible for a disproportionate share of the noise reduction.

                And "one truck sounds as loud as 28 cars"!

                http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/htnoise.htm
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.