• jeffhykin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I dislike these kinds of articles (as someone who bikes to work everyday) because of how they treat an urban perspective as if its the only perspective. Some highway stoplights are in the middle of nowhere, have no crosswalk, can go a full year without a single pedestrian, and often have mimal cars. People who sit at those lights every day get mad from articles (like this one) that are completely tonedeaf to their situation.

    Yes, in a busy city it makes no sense to allow turn on red, and the article has some great info but it also makes no sense to wait 2 minutes on red when there isn’t a car or human within a 5 mile radius.

    If we want people to be onboard with change we’ve got to include them. We can solve both; like getting rual lights to use a flashing red to indicate “allows for turning on red” and THEN get city lights to ban turning right on solid red. Solving one problem expense of another is a quick way to create enemies.

    • froh42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 months ago

      Germany got a ‘right on red’ with reunification - it is allowed when there’s a small sign on the light that explicitly allows it. In any event even if it is allowed “stop sign” rules apply.

      Interestingly the number of lights with such a sign drops each year (after a peak in the 90s) because of higher than normal accident rates and other drivers honking the horn if one driver does not choose to use the “right on red” (which is perfectly fine, you are free to wait till the light is green, turning on red is only an option)

      After all for German cities right on red has rather been disappointing

    • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yes absolutely. Also the problems of right on red are solved by bettee designs of the streets themselves. Dedicated, separate bicycle lanes. Curb bulbs. Raised pedestrian crossings. Stop lines farther back from the intersection.

      • ped_xing [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Stop lines farther back from the intersection.

        People don’t stop for the stop lines, nor the crosswalk, nor the red light. We haven’t even solved stop-on-red. Solutions that will only be implemented in the occasional rich neighborhood are a joke. The problem is that we never had a proper conversation of whether the general public can be trusted to operate heavy machinery. Some dickheads got rich selling the heavy machinery and that was enough to quash any discussion about people being squashed. We need car-free places where people can truly live their lives not only without cars, but without other people zipping by on their cars. Not just 14th Street but all of Manhattan. Make that the go-to move for rich parents who prioritize their childrens’ safety above all else. Make other cities get jealous of the money flowing into car-free Manhattan and implement their own car-free zones.

        Tinkering around the edges is Vision Maybe-Marginally-Less.

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well yeah we should ideally abolish cars for all but the most necessary uses - rural living, etc. But that is something I think falls squarely in the “what we can do after overthrowing capitalism” vision bucket. Folks can grasp that even things more realizable under capitalism are simple and can be fought for. Those fights will also usually fail but in doing so can teach valuable lessons about the nature of bourgeois electoralism.

          • ped_xing [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Car-free Manhattan is just the 78% of households without cars winning out over the 22% with and the daily invaders from out of town. Those percentages are way beyond pro-weed vs. anti-weed and weed has won in a lot of places even without overthrowing capitalism. It’s long overdue there and even the late mayor Koch considered it before I was born.

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              It will lose because 78% isn’t organized and willing to force change down the throats of those with power.

              By the time they were, we could do the necessary overthrow of capitalism first because it is the capitalists that will prevent a car-free Manhattan.

              But I’m also saying that you can try. When you do, remember who the enemy is and see who prevents you - and who they align with!

    • aͮͫͨ͋ͤͣ͌̏lex͒̃ͪ̃ͨ͛́͂ͪ͗̏ͫͮ̂@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      to wait 2 minutes on red when there isn’t a car or human within a 5 mile radius.

      that sounds like a signaling issue? Using shorter signal cycles, tighten up the intersection and use medians for two stage ped crossings, more detection, better monitoring and remote adjustments can all make it so you don’t need to wait long at all.

      (Edit: If it’s done really well it can actually be better than allowing turns on red, because the signal can detect you and give you a green if there’s nobody around before you’ve even come to a stop)

      It also would be more better for the driving experience if it was consistent everywhere. When I’m driving, all these hodgepodge no turn on red signs is exhausting. I wish it was just banned everywhere (with better signals).

      Some places are getting much better with signaling too. When I leave my hometown (Madison WI) I’m always amazed how long and annoying the time waiting at a traffic light is.

      • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Sure, there’s lots of solutions, but we have to talk about them. Even something as simple as “turning on red is often used as a crutch for signaling issues. We shouldnt be waiting at stop lights in the middle of nowhere when theres nobody nearby in the first place”

        The key point is *include these people, their situation, their perspective, in the discussion"

    • deo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      There’s a light next to where i used to live that, like you suggested, used the flashing to indicate when right turns were allowed. I liked it especially since there was a lot of pedestrian traffic during the day but basically none at night (and was thus able to handle the different needs of the road depending on time of day), and it was a really intuitive way to let drivers know what the pedestrian signals were doing. Best part was it was for a right-turn-only lane, and had flashing-yellow (no green at all) to remind you to check for pedestrians and bikes.

    • Grass@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Flashing red is stop sign procedures here. Some, but not enough problematic places have no right on red signs which often get ignored. I mainly have issue with trying to go right on green but that’s when people are crossing, and when I have no choice but to drive near the stadium during a game or concert and people cross endlessly regardless of signals. We really need a separate all way pedestrian sequence in busy intersections and intersections with only 3 crossings at least, and some kind way of ensuring no actions are taken in a pedestrian only phase.