4 ms·

> In Europe No, it varies. Turning cars in Britain never go over 'walk' crossings, but they do in Denmark. It's something I check whenever I drive to a new cou

> In Europe No, it varies. Turning cars in Britain never go over 'walk' crossings, but they do in Denmark. It's something I check whenever I drive to a new country. I think "right turn on red" should be banned first, as this leads to a car drive looking left to see if the road is clear, rather than looking right where pedestrians might be crossing.

AmpsterMan 3y ago
I've spoken to my friends on how right-on-red is one of the most anti-pedestrian rules of the street that exist. It was like pulling nails trying to convince them that the added convenience for motorists is not worth the increased danger to pedestrians... I live in the city, they in the suburbs. It's not that they are uncaring (well, not directly) it is just that for many people, imagining a lifestyle different from theirs is very difficult. I'm convinced that North America will only get its act together when gasoline reaches $9.00/gal. Only then will middle class folks start looking toward city living and only then will we get any appreciable progress in city life. I only hope that we reach that point BEFORE the climate catastrophe worsens beyond repair. The fracking boom doesn't have me very confident of this.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  > I'm convinced that North America will only get its act together when gasoline reaches $9.00/gal. What if North America successfully moves from petrol-powered cars to electric ones, and autonomous vehicles get rolled out, and in the end the sprawling development and the reliance on vehicles remains just as entrenched?
- TheBigSalad 3y ago
  You sound frustrated that you couldn't convince your friend of something so obvious. But you realize most people are both pedestrians and motorists, and still overwhelmingly prefer right on red.
- impendia 3y ago
  I live in Columbia, SC -- a place that is surprisingly pedestrian-friendly but where there is little awareness of this. I walk to most places I go -- decidedly unusual here. I would actually defend right-on-red. Indeed, when I do drive, I get annoyed by all the "no turn on red" signs which slow things down. In my estimation, the problem (locally, anyway) is cultural: drivers don't think to look, or else they feel entitled to turn first even if I'm crossing already and they think they can squeeze by faster. Convince these drivers to care about pedestrians, and to yield when legally required to, and you've solved the problem.
Gravityloss 3y ago
There's three levels. Can the car drive in these situations? 1. Right turn, red for car, green for pedestrian. 2. Right turn, green for car, green for pedestrian. 3. Right turn, green for car, red for pedestrian. In USA, in some states the car driving in situation 1 is allowed (and naturally 2). I assume in most states 1 is not allowed and 2 is allowed. In Europe, I assume driving the car in situation 1 is not allowed anywhere. 2 is mixed, some places have traffic lights that create this green for both, some don't. 3 is of course allowed everywhere in the world.
- jon-wood 3y ago
  I find it baffling that anyone would ever create a crossing where situation 2 is possible. A crossing which can indicate it’s safe to cross while the associate lights are also saying a car can proceed through it is worse than useless. Just remove it and then at least pedestrians will know that they need to be paying particular attention.
  - Glawen 3y ago
    Situation 2 is default in France, except on busy junctions. Its advantage is better throughput for both car and pedestrians. Funny thing is that situation 1 is now allowed for bicycle with the new M12 sign
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      Ok, I'll just repeat the GP here but... Why not just remove the pedestrian light on those places? It's not improving anything. Is there some law against car-only lights?
      - MrJohz 3y ago
        I also still find it kind of odd, but it's not like the light is doing nothing. Typically, at least here in Germany, a crossing cycles between two states: * Cars can go north/south, pedestrians can cross the east and west roads * Cars can go east/west, pedestrians can cross the north and south roads. The key thing here is that pedestrians don't cross the "active" direction, i.e. when cars are going in a straight line from south to north, they will never run into a pedestrian crossing the road in front of them. This is ideal, because cars going in a straight direction tend to go quickly, so we want to alternate fast cars and pedestrians. However, obviously cars don't just go north and south, sometimes they turn. To turn, the car naturally needs to slow down, and also typically be more aware of their surroundings. Theoretically, this means that they are a lot more likely to see, and be able to stop for, a pedestrian crossing the road as they turn. The argument then goes that this group of cars is slow and aware enough that they can share a stretch of road with pedestrians (unlike fast cars traveling in a straight line, which must not share a stretch of road with pedestrians). Which means that you could allow pedestrians to cross if (and only if) the cars that they would intersect with are slow, turning cars. The advantage is that you go from three states in the cycle (cars N/S, cars E/W, all pedestrians) to two (cars N/S + pedestrians E/W, cars E/W + pedestrians N/S), which improves throughput because fewer people need to wait. In practice, this works for relatively small junctions with one or possibly two lanes, but three+ lanes become more complicated and need more states to handle the cars going left and right from different directions. But there is a thought process here about trying to find the right balance between safety and efficiency. As someone from the UK, I'm not sure I'm a fan, but some of that might just be not being used to it.
pixel8account 3y ago
As a pedestrian and car hater I don't mind that too much. Pedestrians always have priority on the walk signal, and there is a special separate light to allow/disallow cars to turn. In practice they are used where it's safe to implement. But I may be wrong - statistics seem to agree with you.
seszett 3y ago
Not sure about Britain and Denmark, but in France, Belgium and the Netherlands there's a difference if the traffic light for cars is an arrow or just a disc. If it's an arrow, cars have priority and don't have to worry about other traffic getting in their way. It's mostly for left turns (a green left arrow indicates that traffic coming in front has a red light) but it also works for pedestrians, a right arrow means that pedestrians and bicycles have red lights. If it's a disc, then cars should pay attention to other traffic and observe regular priority rules, so stop for pedestrians and bicycles that likely have a green light at the same time as the cars do. For pedestrians and bicycles, a green light basically means they always have priority and cars must stop for them wherever they come from.
- kolinko 3y ago
  Same in Poland
singleshot_ 3y ago
I served on a civil jury where a police officer insisted in his testimony that drivers only have to look left when they enter a one way street from the right because “that’s where the traffic is coming from.” I thought this was a weird statement for him to be allowed to make because a) he was a fact witness and that ain’t a fact and b) he was the officer who responded to the scene where he encountered a bicyclist trapped under a hummer… which was turning into a one way street as the bicyclist approached from the right. (The cyclist won a shit-ton of money, of course).

AmpsterMan 3y ago

I've spoken to my friends on how right-on-red is one of the most anti-pedestrian rules of the street that exist. It was like pulling nails trying to convince them that the added convenience for motorists is not worth the increased danger to pedestrians... I live in the city, they in the suburbs. It's not that they are uncaring (well, not directly) it is just that for many people, imagining a lifestyle different from theirs is very difficult. I'm convinced that North America will only get its act together when gasoline reaches $9.00/gal. Only then will middle class folks start looking toward city living and only then will we get any appreciable progress in city life. I only hope that we reach that point BEFORE the climate catastrophe worsens beyond repair. The fracking boom doesn't have me very confident of this.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
> I'm convinced that North America will only get its act together when gasoline reaches $9.00/gal. What if North America successfully moves from petrol-powered cars to electric ones, and autonomous vehicles get rolled out, and in the end the sprawling development and the reliance on vehicles remains just as entrenched?
TheBigSalad 3y ago
You sound frustrated that you couldn't convince your friend of something so obvious. But you realize most people are both pedestrians and motorists, and still overwhelmingly prefer right on red.
impendia 3y ago
I live in Columbia, SC -- a place that is surprisingly pedestrian-friendly but where there is little awareness of this. I walk to most places I go -- decidedly unusual here. I would actually defend right-on-red. Indeed, when I do drive, I get annoyed by all the "no turn on red" signs which slow things down. In my estimation, the problem (locally, anyway) is cultural: drivers don't think to look, or else they feel entitled to turn first even if I'm crossing already and they think they can squeeze by faster. Convince these drivers to care about pedestrians, and to yield when legally required to, and you've solved the problem.

Gravityloss 3y ago

There's three levels. Can the car drive in these situations? 1. Right turn, red for car, green for pedestrian. 2. Right turn, green for car, green for pedestrian. 3. Right turn, green for car, red for pedestrian. In USA, in some states the car driving in situation 1 is allowed (and naturally 2). I assume in most states 1 is not allowed and 2 is allowed. In Europe, I assume driving the car in situation 1 is not allowed anywhere. 2 is mixed, some places have traffic lights that create this green for both, some don't. 3 is of course allowed everywhere in the world.

jon-wood 3y ago
I find it baffling that anyone would ever create a crossing where situation 2 is possible. A crossing which can indicate it’s safe to cross while the associate lights are also saying a car can proceed through it is worse than useless. Just remove it and then at least pedestrians will know that they need to be paying particular attention.
- Glawen 3y ago
  Situation 2 is default in France, except on busy junctions. Its advantage is better throughput for both car and pedestrians. Funny thing is that situation 1 is now allowed for bicycle with the new M12 sign
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Ok, I'll just repeat the GP here but... Why not just remove the pedestrian light on those places? It's not improving anything. Is there some law against car-only lights?
    - MrJohz 3y ago
      I also still find it kind of odd, but it's not like the light is doing nothing. Typically, at least here in Germany, a crossing cycles between two states: * Cars can go north/south, pedestrians can cross the east and west roads * Cars can go east/west, pedestrians can cross the north and south roads. The key thing here is that pedestrians don't cross the "active" direction, i.e. when cars are going in a straight line from south to north, they will never run into a pedestrian crossing the road in front of them. This is ideal, because cars going in a straight direction tend to go quickly, so we want to alternate fast cars and pedestrians. However, obviously cars don't just go north and south, sometimes they turn. To turn, the car naturally needs to slow down, and also typically be more aware of their surroundings. Theoretically, this means that they are a lot more likely to see, and be able to stop for, a pedestrian crossing the road as they turn. The argument then goes that this group of cars is slow and aware enough that they can share a stretch of road with pedestrians (unlike fast cars traveling in a straight line, which must not share a stretch of road with pedestrians). Which means that you could allow pedestrians to cross if (and only if) the cars that they would intersect with are slow, turning cars. The advantage is that you go from three states in the cycle (cars N/S, cars E/W, all pedestrians) to two (cars N/S + pedestrians E/W, cars E/W + pedestrians N/S), which improves throughput because fewer people need to wait. In practice, this works for relatively small junctions with one or possibly two lanes, but three+ lanes become more complicated and need more states to handle the cars going left and right from different directions. But there is a thought process here about trying to find the right balance between safety and efficiency. As someone from the UK, I'm not sure I'm a fan, but some of that might just be not being used to it.

pixel8account 3y ago

As a pedestrian and car hater I don't mind that too much. Pedestrians always have priority on the walk signal, and there is a special separate light to allow/disallow cars to turn. In practice they are used where it's safe to implement. But I may be wrong - statistics seem to agree with you.

seszett 3y ago

Not sure about Britain and Denmark, but in France, Belgium and the Netherlands there's a difference if the traffic light for cars is an arrow or just a disc. If it's an arrow, cars have priority and don't have to worry about other traffic getting in their way. It's mostly for left turns (a green left arrow indicates that traffic coming in front has a red light) but it also works for pedestrians, a right arrow means that pedestrians and bicycles have red lights. If it's a disc, then cars should pay attention to other traffic and observe regular priority rules, so stop for pedestrians and bicycles that likely have a green light at the same time as the cars do. For pedestrians and bicycles, a green light basically means they always have priority and cars must stop for them wherever they come from.

kolinko 3y ago
Same in Poland

singleshot_ 3y ago

I served on a civil jury where a police officer insisted in his testimony that drivers only have to look left when they enter a one way street from the right because “that’s where the traffic is coming from.” I thought this was a weird statement for him to be allowed to make because a) he was a fact witness and that ain’t a fact and b) he was the officer who responded to the scene where he encountered a bicyclist trapped under a hummer… which was turning into a one way street as the bicyclist approached from the right. (The cyclist won a shit-ton of money, of course).