No More Right on Red!
DDOT these days is exploring all sorts of ways to make the city more pedestrian friendly. That quest includes a first-ever public meeting on pedestrian issues that our city planning expert, Mark Jenkins, skewered in this very space.
I didn't attend, but I have a belated recommendation: End the tyranny of right on red. No single traffic rule---actually, permission---so routinely horrifies and puts in danger the noble pedestrians of the District of Columbia. At any well-traveled intersection, the right-on-redders are constantly pulling up into the crosswalk, cutting off and, I'm sure, occasionally clipping those on foot.
And why wouldn't they? Think about the dynamics of the right on red: As you approach the intersection in your vehicle, you spot the red. You see that the lightpost has no sign prohibiting the turn. At that point, as you creep up to the light, you pivot your head to the left, waiting for a break in the traffic, so that you can do your right on red without sideswiping someone. You spot a break in the flow, and execute your R on R.
Oh, but what about that poor jogger who just (legally) started across the crosswalk! You didn't see him because you were looking the other way, worried only about other cars.
Step 1: Scrap R on R. Step 2: Actually enforce traffic laws.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
10:52 am
"Step 1: Scrap R on R. Step 2: Actually enforce traffic laws."
Disagree. That is how DC government thinks about EVERYTHING. Why on earth would you go changing laws, install red light traffic cameras, do a million things to solve a problem BEFORE the obvious -- enforcing the laws already on the books?
There's nothing wrong with R&R. DC, unlike New York City (the only place in the US without RonR, I think) is a vastly different pedestrian landscape than Washington. DC has only a tiny fraction of its land area that is densely populated enough where pedestrian safety is an issue. Eliminating RonR will frustrate people unnecessarily, waste fuel as people idle needlessly at lights throughout the city, and probably do very little to improve pedestrian safety.
Just about every intersection in the high-density areas already has a "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" signs, anyway. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that right-turn-on-red has anything to do with the pedestrian safety problem in this city? Or is this yet another kneejerk "let's make more laws instead of actually trying to understand the problem" reaction?
10:59 am
And think about the dynamics of pedestrian crossings from a RonR versus turning right at a green light.
Pedestrians cross with the flow of traffic. Turning right on red, you would only have a problem from a pedestrian crossing RIGHT IN FRONT of you - before you made the turn. You will be looking there because it's right in front of you, and you will already have been stopped before attempting your right turn since you are (in fact) at a red light.
The much greater danger happens in NORMAL right turns - right on green - when the pedestrian is crossing in the space you're about to turn into, where you may not have been looking, since they could be approaching from the blind spot on your right. But at a red light, you will be slowly inching up to make the turn. There will be no pedestrians (legally) in the road you're turning onto.