"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."

Do you not see the pedestrian light? If it's green pedestrians are allowed to cross and have right of way. If it's red they shouldn't be crossing and if they do, should not expect anyone to give them right of way. If a pedestrian hears a car horn when they cross on a red man, why?

"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."

Yes but you have to check in two *opposite* directions, to your left for traffic approaching from your left and in the opposite direction for a pedestrian crossing on a green pedestrian light (always wait for a green man before crossing, okay?).

"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 you only need to look slightly to your right, the point you mentioned might not necessarily make right turn on green more dangerous but make waiting for a green before turning right more dangerous because pedestrians tend to cross at the start of the green phase.

"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."

Would it also make it harder for other traffic than those turning right, for example opposing left turning traffic. Could it be that with no right on red, right turners are more inclined to race up to green lights to beat the red, making it harder for opposing left turning traffic (which has to yield unless there are multiple lanes to turn into). As for people waiting needlessly at lights throughout the city, there are other solutions to that such as better controlled traffic lights to reduce unnecessary red time. One thing that can help is to provide a sensor at a distance from the intersection to trigger a green if other traffic does not already have priority. Also turning off some sets of light during less busy times might also help. One could also consider placing stop or give way signs at such intersections so the major road has priority during these times.

"DC has only a tiny fraction of its land area that is densely populated enough where pedestrian safety is an issue. " So why then don't you have more roundabouts are fewer traffic lights?

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?