Comment by throwway120385
4 days ago
> With the walk signal there is a brief moment in time when the drivers are doing nothing but waiting for you and are all stopped so you as a pedestrian can account for them in preparation just before you get your signal and make your move.
Having almost been hit a few times by drivers making a right turn on red, I can tell you the drivers never wait even if you have the right of way. You'll be lucky if they even look for you.
> Legally having the right of way doesn't make you any less dead when the driver who's got three other drivers to pay attention to doesn't see you.
Also, and I know this is unpopular, but maybe you shouldn't dress like that if you don't want the attention.
Why is right-on-red always cited as the biggest problem with turns? My anecdotal experience is that drivers turning on green are way more likely to hit me when I have a walk signal on the cross-street than drivers who turn right on red.
It's usually because a driver turning (right) on green doesn't have to worry about merging into traffic, so they only need to focus on pedestrians. Hopefully they will. A driver turning right on red has traffic coming from their left and pedestrians walking in front, and they're usually more concerned about the cars, so they tend to look left while turning right. Ouch. It's a growing issue as well because of the growing size of cars. Littler people can be completely concealed behind a front grille.
A car turning left on green is also an issue because while they should be able to see and wait for pedestrians, they're often occluded by other cars and trucks, and those left turners can be in a hurry to proceed through a gap in traffic.
Also, while technically a right on red should require one to come to a full stop, then start their turn, in practice many people are doing rights on red at rolling stops at significantly higher speeds.
On a green arrow turn, drivers are looking to where they are going. Legally crossing pedestrians are in that cross walk where the driver is looking.
With right on red, the driver is also looking to where they are going, but legally crossing pedestrians are not there, they are directly in front of the car.
The riskiest thing for a pedestrian is approaching a right on red car from the left, because the driver is simply not looking at you.
This seems to not actually be the case in my experience, because right-turn drivers love to look to the left while turning right, because they are afraid of a fast-moving car appearing from the left, but they think they already verified that no slow-moving peds are crossing on the right.
The big problem with right on red is that it perfectly synchronizes them to hit each other.
Say a driver and pedestrian are at the same corner facing the same way and the pedestrian wants to cross into the area the driver wants to turn. The street is busy so the driver can't turn right on the red and the pedestrian isn't gonna just walk against the signal into the traffic. Cross traffic lets up, either because of a big gap or because the light has cycled to red for the cross traffic. The conditions that both parties require before making their move have just been satisfied at the same time. The pedestrian walks and the driver turns, leading to inevitable conflict. If both the driver and the pedestrian are in a hurry and trying to shoot a gap in traffic and go quickly there can be no time for either party to avoid the accident.
Edit: The above example is crosswalks only, no dedicated pedestrian signals.
1 reply →
The number of people that make right-on-reds that not once during the approach or during the turn look to their right is what makes it a problem. I have often been tempted to do one of those YT videos of people spending their day videoing people at intersections to show how prevalent bad behavior really is. I just have no presence there for it to make it worth my time. I know how bad it is, and adjust my personal behavior accordingly
Are you saying that a right-turn can be green simultaneous with the pedestrian's crossing light being green?
Because where I'm from, traffic lights are not allowed to be set up like that. No simultaneous green for crossing traffic flows, unless otherwise indicated (eg, an extra warning light+sign under the turn's traffic light flashing when it's green and off otherwise).
A car turning on a green light can be simultaneous with the pedestrian's crossing light being green. The driver is obligated to see the pedestrian and wait.
What's not simultaneous is a green turn arrow with a green ped crossing. Intersections in the US are designed so that a green arrow will mean the driver has no conflicts and can proceed.
Not everyone (both drivers and peds) understands that distinction.
1 reply →
Yes: https://ibb.co/86tqnBM
Direct link: https://i.ibb.co/Hn36L27/Green-crossing.png
solid green (right turn allowed) + pedestrian green (for crossing).
car and ped both have access to ped crossing. (Car should yield to any ped in crossing.)
Also, I drew a picture before I realized that this wasn't what you were asking about. But I like the picture.
1 reply →
Yes. This pattern is normal in the US.
While vehicles are traveling north and south, the walk sign for crossing north and south is available. But vehicles are typically allowed to turn in the same cycle, protected lefts with their own cycle are common. Some intersections have a dedicated arrow for right turns and those will signal no rights while a walk sign is on, but otherwise pedestrians and right turns conflict.
> Are you saying that a right-turn can be green simultaneous with the pedestrian's crossing light being green?
I can't think of many places that I drive where this isn't the case.
The pedestrian crossing lights are in sync with the traffic lights, if traffic going N/S is green then the pedestrian lights going N/S will also be green even if cars are turning E/W
1 reply →
Drivers have to worry about the traffic which has the green light vs. just looking where they're going.
My anecdotal evidence is that everyone is looking out for themselves and people in bigger vehicles will always take advantage of that.
Here's how I handle right on red: When I have the walk signal, I look to my left for cars that might be turning right. If there are any, I look at whether the driver sees me. Try to make eye contact. If they are moving and apparently don't see me or are going to turn anyway, I wait. I may have the right of way, but I'm not going to win that battle.
I make it clear with body language and eye contact that yes I see them and no I'm not meekly yielding my right of way. However, I leave just enough space to avoid being hit, for those situations when the True Assholes knowingly cut me off anyway. Or maybe they're not assholes by intent, but instead in the 90th percentile for inattentiveness and bad driving habits, which may even be the same thing. I don't know, I'm not a driver psychologist.
I think a pretty large percentage of drivers don’t actually know that they’re supposed to yield to pedestrians when turning at lights.
I’ve had multiple close calls where the driver looks at me angrily, I point at the white ‘walk’ symbol, and then their anger turns to confusion. They had no idea that they’re supposed to wait.
4 replies →
If they get that close to me, the car is getting kicked or slapped to elicit a reaction from the driver.
1 reply →
This is what was taught to me in drivers ed as a driver. Make eye contact with the pedestrian. So I do the same as a pedestrian as well.
> Having almost been hit a few times by drivers making a right turn on red, I can tell you the drivers never wait even if you have the right of way. You'll be lucky if they even look for you.
Right on red should not really be allowed. It's a real hazard.
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.
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.
5 replies →
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.
5 replies →
The real issue are the road rage drivers who can't wait a minute and start honking behind you.
We all get it, we are all late now and then, but unless you are literally trying to catch a plane or a boat, in all likelihood you can sit your candy ass down and wait a minute.
I just keep my turn signals off and wait for green (or a very obviously safe opening). Let them think that I want to go straight.
It hasn't been a problem here in Maine, but Portland is an extremely relaxed place. The intersection outside my apartment is quite literally a cliche'd Indian street style free for all with a set of lights that offer suggestions, but people wait for pedestrians and nobody honks.
It's not allowed here in NYC. I've nearly gotten mowed down by people from the suburbs driving into the city not knowing it's illegal here on a few occasions. They also seem to get pissed and honk at me, as if walking around NYC isn't the default mode of transportation.
To be fair I've seen NYC _pedestrians_ yell at other pedestrians for walking wrong, NYC isn't exactly an outwardly friendly place in that respect.
1 reply →
It isn't in much of Europe.
Right on red is (or should be) never allowed during a pedestrian scramble. That's just asking for trouble. The box must be entirely clear of cars during the walk signal.
I'm nearby this intersection and there are 2 scrambles- this one and one about 2 blocks down closer to the university. There is very clear signage for cars that there are no turns allowed on red. I've crossed both intersections many times and rarely have I seen cars violating that rule. Perhaps they do but in my experience, they generally respect it.
Left turns on green (with no green arrow) are also pretty bad imo, as are right turns on green with no arrow. In both cases pedestrians are supposed to have right-of-way, but cars often don't respect it.
That's part of what pedestrian scrambles so great: you always wait for the pedestrian phase before crossing. There is no pedestrian crossing in the car phase.
The other great benefit is you can cross the diagonal (kitty corner).
1 reply →
Unfortunately it seems useless/impossible to situationally forbid right-on-red, drivers just do it anyway. There are several intersections in Seattle with "no right on red" signs for various reasons (poor visibility, trolley intersection) and drivers just ignore them and make the right regardless. I frequently get angrily honked at by the car behind me when I am obeying the no right on red sign.
> maybe you shouldn't dress like that if you don't want the attention.
Have you ever taken the selective attention test?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo (short 1:22 video)
>> Legally having the right of way doesn't make you any less dead when the driver who's got three other drivers to pay attention to doesn't see you.
>Also, and I know this is unpopular, but maybe you shouldn't dress like that if you don't want the attention.
in driver's ed you're taught to "drive defensively" i think the same applies to pedestrians. Don't just step into the road when the walk sign comes on, have some situational awareness and protect yourself.
Worse yet, at least in Seattle, are right arrow lights that go green at the same time as the walk light. You get a green light to go and pedestrians start crossing at the same time. Having a green light and a walking sign on should be mutually exclusive.
A pedestrian scramble means that no vehicles should be moving through the intersection period. It is a time in the cycle where ALL vehicles stop, and pedestrians can use the intersection freely in any direction, including diagonally.
You have never had a driver wait?
In the UK, it is very rare for a pedestrian crossing that is controlled by a button press to not completely stop traffic. The first time I was in North America as an adult, I realised that when on a crosswalk drivers will come sailing at you and will cross behind you as you cross over. That is illegal here. The drivers need to wait for the pedestrians to cross, even on "Zebra" crossings (which are the ones with no buttons and striped lines across the road.) The only exception to this is if there is a traffic island in the middle of the road, and then they are treated as 2 different crossings. But quite often those are staggered, so the pedestrian can't just walk out directly from one side to the other.
The trade off is that the pedestrian has pretty much no right of way anywhere but a crossing, and cars will drive at you (or at least not stop for you) if you try to cross somewhere that is not a crossing. Though "Jaywalking" is not a thing and you can actually cross where ever you like.
> I realised that when on a crosswalk drivers will come sailing at you and will cross behind you as you cross over. That is illegal here.
It's illegal in most if not all of USA too, but no one cares in practice. Legally, even when a car driver and a pedestrian both have access to a lane separately, if both are present, then a car driver must give a full lane-width of space to a pedestrian crossing or at the corner.
Also, even when a pedestrian is committing the auto-industry-invented crime of "jaywalking", the pedestrian still has the right of way in traffic, unless it is physically impossible for the car driver to avoid the collision. Car drivers are not judge/jury/executioner.
(Nit: "Cars" don't "drive" (yet, in most places). "Car drivers" drive cars.)
1 reply →
> The trade off is that the pedestrian has pretty much no right of way anywhere but a crossing, and cars will drive at you (or at least not stop for you) if you try to cross somewhere that is not a crossing.
That's not true, or at least it's bad/illegal driving if they do so, a pedestrian who is 'established in the road' as the right of way anywhere.
As you said:
> Though "Jaywalking" is not a thing and you can actually cross where ever you like.
Otherwise it would be a contradiction wouldn't it? If the pedestrians allowed to be there, the motorist obviously isn't allowed to run them over, ... I suppose you could say the pedestrian can continue crossing but only after first giving way to the motorist? There'd be more time with pedestrians in the road though.
Not that I recommend using that fact to cross when you don't have time, because you will anger motorists. Or they could not see you/be paying attention. They'd be wrong, but it's just not worth it, obviously.
1 reply →