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.

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?