RE: [carfree_cities] Re: Turns on red and the effect
> I'm not saying that a driver turning right on red never endangers aThe real problem is bad drivers. THEY should be eliminated, at first. If 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.
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 agree good street designs is a nice solution.
> 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.
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 said:
>How about putting some bumps a 45 degree angles at each street corners toTraffic engineers have finally figured out that all you have 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.
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).
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
- Louis-Luc wrote:
>Talking about right turns on green, I've had to bang a car at severalI 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.
>occasions with my stick to let the driver know he's wrong doing that.
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.
Win a First Class Trip to Hawaii to Vacation Elvis Style!
- 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"!