3 ms·

IMO the problem isn't right on red itself, but rather that vehicles have to be in (and often completely over) the pedestrian crossing area to see oncoming vehic

IMO the problem isn't right on red itself, but rather that vehicles have to be in (and often completely over) the pedestrian crossing area to see oncoming vehicle traffic they have to yield to (at the distance required due to higher oncoming vehicle speeds). This encourages the behavior where drivers plan to have a single stop in that area, where they wait for an opening in vehicles to go - completely failing to take into account the possibility of having to stop before that area due to pedestrians actually using it. The situation is more like two separate stop and yields, and when drivers don't expect pedestrians they skip the first one.

estebank 2y ago
If there is no way of configuring the intersection so that right on red is safe for pedestrians, then the problem is the right on red.
- mindslight 2y ago
  The point of looking deeper at the actual dynamics is to brainstorm ways intersections could be made safer, without overshooting and then getting a campaign to undo it all in 20 years. For example: Less visual obstructions so that oncoming traffic can be seen sooner? maybe, but probably not going to change learned behavior Advance the crosswalk even more, with two separate lights? perhaps on a per-intersection basis Hard square corner kerb instead of a round bevel? Might help in general.
  - estebank 2y ago
    > Less visual obstructions so that oncoming traffic can be seen sooner? This is called daylighting and California passed a law for it https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/daylighting https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/daylighting > Advance the crosswalk even more, with two separate lights? Pedestrians already have a "leading signal" in intersections with lots of people, which makes the wall signal change before the green for cars. Right on red defeats their purpose, which is to ensure pedestrians are on the middle of the street by the time a car wants to turn, putting them where they are easiest to be seen. > Hard square corner kerb instead of a round bevel? Yes. I would go further and have bulb outs https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/pedestrian-improvements-toolkit/intersection-bulb-outs https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/pedestrian-improve... and at grade crossings (the zebra crossing is at the same height as the sidewalk). All of these have been proven to work. > overshooting I don't think there is any risk of "overshooting" in making cities nicer and safer for pedestrians and all other road users in the US. If anything it will be an uphill battle to accomplish any change.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      I don't know why it feels like you're jumping on me here. Is it just CivE attracting people who overly focus on nouns? What you're calling an "at grade crossing" is indeed a good one I missed. I would call them something like crosswalk on a speed bump, which might be "car centric" or whatever, but at least isn't overloading a term that generally refers to using different levels for actual traffic separation. Everything we're talking about here is actually an at grade crossing. > I don't think there is any risk of "overshooting" in making cities nicer and safer for pedestrians and all other road users in the US. If anything it will be an uphill battle to accomplish any change. You really don't see the possibility of backlash to "no turn on red" everywhere creating a campaign of drivers getting frustrated while waiting for timed red lights to change at completely quiet intersections? And also FWIW, "no turn on red" doesn't actually prevent drivers from driving into the pedestrian crossing area - it just removes the benefit. It would still take a generation or two to change learned behavior.
      - estebank 2y ago
        > I don't know why it feels like you're jumping on me here. I think what you're sensing was terseness of response because I was writing on a phone. > What you're calling an "at grade crossing" is indeed a good one I missed. I would call them something like crosswalk on a speed bump, which might be "car centric" or whatever, but at least isn't overloading a term that generally refers to using different levels for actual traffic separation. Everything we're talking about here is actually an at grade crossing. They are usually called "continuous sidewalks", but the terminology is locale dependent (not every place calls them sidewalks). > You really don't see the possibility of backlash to "no turn on red" everywhere creating a campaign of drivers getting frustrated while waiting for timed red lights to change at completely quiet intersections? Anything that is perceived as a source of frustration will cause backlash. That's not a reason not to do things that have been proven to work better. Dedicated bus lanes and congestion charges always get backlash, for example, but after implemented traffic always ends up flowing more smoothly, which does make driving less stressful. "No turn on red" is the default in most of the planet. Forbidding it in cities (particularly downtown and during the day) shouldn't be a problem. > it just removes the benefit. It would still take a generation or two to change learned behavior. I think that people adapt much faster than generationally. And it is important to change incentives. Incentives affect us way more than we realize. Something as trivial as changing the coloring or texture of the intersections causes us to change our behavior in ways we wouldn't necessarily notice unless we paid a lot of attention.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Not stopping before the pedestrian area is an instant ticket in my small town. They really promote walkability here. All of the issue listed seem to stem from lack of law enforcement. Our town also has bins at intersections with bright orange flags to increase your visibility as well as flashing 'pedestrian crossing' strobes initiated by button at problem location.
- cloverich 2y ago
  > All of the issue listed seem to stem from lack of law enforcement When its a few bad apples its an enforcement issue. When its many bad apples its a design issue.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Do you mean bins where people like, take an orange flag out, cross the street holding the flag, and then put the orange flag back in the bin on the other side? This is the first I'm ever hearing of that, and it sounds immediately ridiculous. But with further consideration I could see this being quite interesting for significantly changing the dynamic.
  - manwe150 2y ago
    Yes, the flashing lights are more common in my area, but either are a nice signal that someone wants to cross (and isn't merely waiting for their uber or to get in their own car)
  - grogenaut 2y ago
    It is completely rediculous and I take every opportunity to ham it the eff up when I use them. They're in in several of the nicer places on the east side of seattle but are being replaced by aggressive pedestrian flashers. I'm 6'2 but I take the opportunity to re-enact my favorite olympics floor ribbion routine.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  I understand bricks are far more effective than some flag.

estebank 2y ago

If there is no way of configuring the intersection so that right on red is safe for pedestrians, then the problem is the right on red.

mindslight 2y ago
The point of looking deeper at the actual dynamics is to brainstorm ways intersections could be made safer, without overshooting and then getting a campaign to undo it all in 20 years. For example: Less visual obstructions so that oncoming traffic can be seen sooner? maybe, but probably not going to change learned behavior Advance the crosswalk even more, with two separate lights? perhaps on a per-intersection basis Hard square corner kerb instead of a round bevel? Might help in general.
- estebank 2y ago
  > Less visual obstructions so that oncoming traffic can be seen sooner? This is called daylighting and California passed a law for it https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/daylighting https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/daylighting > Advance the crosswalk even more, with two separate lights? Pedestrians already have a "leading signal" in intersections with lots of people, which makes the wall signal change before the green for cars. Right on red defeats their purpose, which is to ensure pedestrians are on the middle of the street by the time a car wants to turn, putting them where they are easiest to be seen. > Hard square corner kerb instead of a round bevel? Yes. I would go further and have bulb outs https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/pedestrian-improvements-toolkit/intersection-bulb-outs https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/pedestrian-improve... and at grade crossings (the zebra crossing is at the same height as the sidewalk). All of these have been proven to work. > overshooting I don't think there is any risk of "overshooting" in making cities nicer and safer for pedestrians and all other road users in the US. If anything it will be an uphill battle to accomplish any change.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    I don't know why it feels like you're jumping on me here. Is it just CivE attracting people who overly focus on nouns? What you're calling an "at grade crossing" is indeed a good one I missed. I would call them something like crosswalk on a speed bump, which might be "car centric" or whatever, but at least isn't overloading a term that generally refers to using different levels for actual traffic separation. Everything we're talking about here is actually an at grade crossing. > I don't think there is any risk of "overshooting" in making cities nicer and safer for pedestrians and all other road users in the US. If anything it will be an uphill battle to accomplish any change. You really don't see the possibility of backlash to "no turn on red" everywhere creating a campaign of drivers getting frustrated while waiting for timed red lights to change at completely quiet intersections? And also FWIW, "no turn on red" doesn't actually prevent drivers from driving into the pedestrian crossing area - it just removes the benefit. It would still take a generation or two to change learned behavior.
    - estebank 2y ago
      > I don't know why it feels like you're jumping on me here. I think what you're sensing was terseness of response because I was writing on a phone. > What you're calling an "at grade crossing" is indeed a good one I missed. I would call them something like crosswalk on a speed bump, which might be "car centric" or whatever, but at least isn't overloading a term that generally refers to using different levels for actual traffic separation. Everything we're talking about here is actually an at grade crossing. They are usually called "continuous sidewalks", but the terminology is locale dependent (not every place calls them sidewalks). > You really don't see the possibility of backlash to "no turn on red" everywhere creating a campaign of drivers getting frustrated while waiting for timed red lights to change at completely quiet intersections? Anything that is perceived as a source of frustration will cause backlash. That's not a reason not to do things that have been proven to work better. Dedicated bus lanes and congestion charges always get backlash, for example, but after implemented traffic always ends up flowing more smoothly, which does make driving less stressful. "No turn on red" is the default in most of the planet. Forbidding it in cities (particularly downtown and during the day) shouldn't be a problem. > it just removes the benefit. It would still take a generation or two to change learned behavior. I think that people adapt much faster than generationally. And it is important to change incentives. Incentives affect us way more than we realize. Something as trivial as changing the coloring or texture of the intersections causes us to change our behavior in ways we wouldn't necessarily notice unless we paid a lot of attention.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Not stopping before the pedestrian area is an instant ticket in my small town. They really promote walkability here. All of the issue listed seem to stem from lack of law enforcement. Our town also has bins at intersections with bright orange flags to increase your visibility as well as flashing 'pedestrian crossing' strobes initiated by button at problem location.

cloverich 2y ago
> All of the issue listed seem to stem from lack of law enforcement When its a few bad apples its an enforcement issue. When its many bad apples its a design issue.
mindslight 2y ago
Do you mean bins where people like, take an orange flag out, cross the street holding the flag, and then put the orange flag back in the bin on the other side? This is the first I'm ever hearing of that, and it sounds immediately ridiculous. But with further consideration I could see this being quite interesting for significantly changing the dynamic.
- manwe150 2y ago
  Yes, the flashing lights are more common in my area, but either are a nice signal that someone wants to cross (and isn't merely waiting for their uber or to get in their own car)
- grogenaut 2y ago
  It is completely rediculous and I take every opportunity to ham it the eff up when I use them. They're in in several of the nicer places on the east side of seattle but are being replaced by aggressive pedestrian flashers. I'm 6'2 but I take the opportunity to re-enact my favorite olympics floor ribbion routine.
CalRobert 2y ago
I understand bricks are far more effective than some flag.