Someone on Twitter recently re-upped a Fast Company piece from a few months ago about our old friend, right turn on red—known to all traffic cognoscenti as RTOR:
It's time to ban 'right-on-red'
Cognitive overload is inevitable if drivers are expected to simultaneously watch traffic to their left and keep an eye out for anyone biking or walking to their right. The policy harms even those pedestrians and cyclists who avoid being struck, forcing them to maneuver around cars that have edged into crosswalks.
The good news is that U.S. cities are starting to recognize these downsides, which are particularly troubling at a time when pedestrian and cyclist deaths have hit their highest levels in 40 years. Several local governments have recently adopted no-turn-on-red policies, and others are considering doing the same. This trend should be encouraged. Right-on-red is an ill-conceived traffic rule that needs to die.
It's weird. I support RTOR but I don't have a huge axe to grind here. I'm just annoyed that these pieces routinely refuse to engage with actual research.
In this case, author David Zipper introduces one study from 1981. It does conclude that the introduction of RTOR increases pedestrian and bicycle accidents, and it seems to be legit. But this research is 40 years old and was done when RTOR was brand new in most places. Why not something more recent? Probably because literally all of the more recent studies have concluded that RTOR has virtually no effect on accident rates.
Zipper does cite one very recent article, but it's not about accident rates at all. It's about the eye movement of drivers at a red light. Here's the takeaway:
The largest share of attention among RTOR drivers is—surprise!—on pedestrians. If you add up all the attention generally aimed rightward it comes to about 60%. The researchers are plainly reluctant to admit this but they do tuck in the following:
The finding that relevant pedestrians were most attended to by drivers seems unexpected.... The large amount of time spent looking at pedestrians for both signal statuses indicates that drivers may be checking pedestrian areas more than previously thought.
Regardless of whether RTOR increases pedestrian accident rates, virtually everyone agrees on the following:
- At most, the increase is either zero or tiny.
- Either way, right-turning pedestrian accidents are a minuscule portion of all pedestrian accidents. For example, in a 1994 update to their 1981 study, DOT researchers found that over a 3-year period they identified 356 RTOR pedestrian/bicyclist injuries (including four deaths) compared to 119,000 total injuries (including 688 deaths) at signalized intersections. That's 0.3% of the total.
- Of the already small number of RTOR injuries, the vast majority (90+%) are minor.
It's notable that DOT hasn't done an RTOR study since 1994. It's just not significant compared to other traffic problems.
It's obvious that bicyclists find RTOR annoying. I get that. Right-turning cars intrude on bike lanes and require more attention from bicyclists. But annoyance isn't enough. Like it or not, all the evidence suggests that the actual rate of RTOR incidents is tiny and most of them are trivial. Banning RTOR is a solution in search of a problem.
POSTSCRIPT: Zipper does link to one other thing, an analysis of a pilot project in Washington DC. It finds that at intersections where RTOR was banned there was a large decrease in "failure to yield" on red lights. That's good, although the numbers are frankly too large to be believable. But there was also a large decrease when the light was green. This suggests something hinky going on with the measurements. What's more, when RTOR was banned they found an increase in crosswalk encroachment. There was no data on injuries or accidents.
Zipper also says that "Toronto officials have estimated that historically [RTOR turns] have accounted for some 2% of pedestrian deaths and 4% of cyclist deaths in that city." But that's low! So low, in fact, that the Toronto report specifically says "conflicts between right turning vehicles during the red signal and pedestrians or cyclists is not a systemic issue across the entire network." (Italics mine.) In a 52-page report with dozens of suggestions for traffic improvements, RTOR is so insignificant that it gets a grand total of two paragraphs.
The alternative to RTOR? Line up all the pedestrians behind a "don't walk" signal and all the left turning cars behind a red light, then let them both go all at once when the light turns green. Guaranteed to increase congestion and vehicle/pedestrian conflict.
Make $280 per hour. Getting a job is not easy. In any case, you have access to a wealth of resources to help you with your work style. Become motivated to promote hundreds of jobs through job boards and career websites.
Take a look at this............................. https://paymoney33.blogspot.com/
Those stats don't take into consideration the situations at various intersections in those studied. RTOR as far as I know started in western US states where population ballooned post-WWII and was totally car oriented and far less dense. It wasn't a thing in the East, but eventually spread other than in NYC.
You live in one of those car oriented anti-pedestrian places.
In dense cities like most of NYC there are pedestrians crossing the street at intersections all the time, in many cases in large numbers. It made sense to retain no RTOR in the overwhelming percentage of intersections, so a blanket policy makes sense. Still many pedestrians are killed crossing the street at intersections in NYC every year. There are other things that can be done with street and signal designs and programming as well.
New York State wasn't always RTOR state. I vaguely remember that when the state adopted RTOR, they carved out an exception for New York City. The alternative was the city posting "no turn on red" signs at just about every street corner.
But that's the problem: they don't count right on green incidences in this statistic. There's just no solid evidence that places with it have more ped deaths vs without.
Yes! This drives me crazy!
There was an editorial in the SF Chronicle this week proposing this yet again despite a complete lack of evidence that it makes any positive difference (https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/safe-streets-california-traffic-2024-18576448.php).
As a constant bicyclist and pedestrian, I would bet that accidents per turn are worse for right on green than right on red -- certainly I've had far more close calls in RTOG than RTOR!
A right turn on green can be done at speed (for the car), so more can be more dangerous when the car crosses the bike lane. Right turn on red means the car starts up from a stop, so the bike has a better chance to react. Depending on the road design, the right turn on red car may not see a bike until it is blocking the bike lane.
The car at a stop to turn right should be checking its corners, and is easier to go around on their left than a car not at a stop but merely slowing for peds.
Exactly. And by increasing congestion, you just increase the number of interactions on the green side of the light.
Have there been any studies on how much banning RTOR would slow down traffic? Especially during rush hour when even a little slowing reverberates? Intuitively I would think it would be significant, but I'm not really sure...
Kevin, surely this isn't some small backwater of a larger "war on cars?" 🙂
You have to also consider the benefits of RTOR as well as the risks. Less time for cars to idle, shorter commutes, less congestion, less pollution, etc.
Unnecessary deaths are bad.
RTOR results in unnecessary deaths, even if it's only a small percentage.
Small percentage is greater than zero.
Opposing banning RTOR is the same thing as saying that the convenience of drivers is more important than the lives of those who die.
Sure, it's not going to solve ALL pedestrian deaths, but that's not the point and nobody was ever saying that. All they're saying is that it would make things safer for everyone and that's proven in every single thing cited above: it makes roads safer.
Dripping with car-centric privilege over here, which is about what I'd expect for Irvine, CA.
Seriously. He says “annoyance isn’t enough” for bikers to oppose it. Seems like he thinks car drivers’ annoyance is enough to justify it.
I see what you mean, but to justify a ban, you need to prove RTOR causes more accidents per turn than RTOG, not just that a nonzero number of such accidents occur. That's not indicated by any of the evidence so far.
Or you could just ban right turns altogether, I suppose 🙂
Isn't that what the newly-no-RTOR intersections showing a decrease in deaths shows? But yes, that's true broadly speaking.
Do they, though?
We should drop the national speed limit to 10 mph. This would dramatically reduce traffic deaths. Opposing dropping the speed limit is the same thing as saying our time is more important than the lives of those who die.
I think you think you're being sarcastic and making a point, but it falls flat.
Posted speed limits do little to impact actual driving speed. Road and street design is the primary variable.
+1. My take on this as well.
We make these sorts of policy decisions all the time. A nationwide 35 mph speed limit would lower "unnecessary" deaths, but the economic tradeoff is too expensive.
Right, we do make these policy decisions all the time. But we should be clear when we make them: by allowing RTOR, we are choosing a higher number of deaths by vehicle-into-pedestrian crash than the alternative.
Maybe. But that's not really obvious.
For example, you'll get a lot more people running red lights when they can't turn. And even more speeding up through yellows. Which has to exponentially increase the lethality of any collision.
It's at least *possible* that RTOR reduces pedestrian deaths.
Does it, though? Or did you just move the deaths to the green?
Having lived and driven in a place where RTOR is illegal, the inconvenience of not being able to turn on red is very, very insignificant.
Weighing the insignificant amount of added time for drivers versus the insignificant dead bikers/pedestrians doesnt seem as difficult as Kevin makes it out to be.
Weighing your decision it's insignificant doesn't seem to interact with whether it's more or less actually significant.
Or whether there are actually fewer deaths.
Sure it does. Determining collective significance is just the sum of individual determinations.
My first experience in a place where RTOR was banned was one of surprise and frustration. But it took almost no time at all for my opinion to change.
What you actually mean is that you dont like my determination so its irrelevant to you. Thats a bad way to think about any topic.
Any locality which wishes to preclude right-on-red is already free to do so. All they need do is install signage at each intersection where they wish to preclude it.
This statement from the quoted article gets on my nerves:
“Cognitive overload is inevitable if drivers are expected to simultaneously watch traffic to their left and keep an eye out for anyone biking or walking to their right.”
No, it isn’t. Sorry, but that’s just a dumb statement. Not to put too fine a point on it, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time; or, more to the point, we can look left and then look right while driving. It’s not rocket science.
But that quote doesn’t just assume incompetence on the part of car and truck drivers. The quoted statement also seems to assume that pedestrian and bike drivers somehow can’t (or shouldn’t even be expected to) keep their own eyes and ears sufficiently open at intersections. Stupidity is assumed on every front.
And maybe some will approve of that approach. Perhaps an argument can be made that assuming the worst is actually the best way to avoid it. But, as with all proposed solutions, there are inevitable drawbacks. And in any debate the question always comes down not to an ideal solution but instead to a preferred set of both pros as well as cons. In other words, there’s nothing but compromises all the way down.
And I personally lean in the direction of freedom rather than safety. Yes, there are indeed accidents that can happen at RTOR. But there are accidents that can happen everywhere. And we simply cannot hide from them or legislate them all away.
An excessive emphasis on safetyism, in fact, is no doubt a major factor in our current world where kids are no longer free to simply walk by themselves to and from school (as I did - not that long ago!), or play outside by themselves, or take their own bus and subway trips.
Safety is good to a point; until, paradoxically, it gets pushed so far that safety turns into a harm of its own. The trick is always to find the right balance. And banning RTOR isn’t it.
It's all well and good to say that drivers *can* walk and chew gum at the same time; but the issue is they *don't*. If your solution relies on widespread reeducation of existing drivers, then it's not a solution.
@Ian:
I’m not even proposing a solution. There is no problem in the first place. That’s the whole point.
Or, rather, there is no genuine problem. It is true that human drivers are not perfect. It is also true that pedestrians and bicyclists are not safeguarded against all risk. But in a free society, these factors will not significantly change.
The only way to alter these variables in a major way is to drastically reduce the range of allowed activity. And banning RTOR is one such example. But, in my estimation, that approach goes too far.
I’d rather live happily with risk than to live restricted but “safe.”
These silly peaens to illusory freedom and the good ole days when men were men and kids were tougher are always ridiculous.
We must maintain the status quo because FREEDOM!! and we have to toughen the kids up!!! REAL MURICA!
This argument is always dumb and is always used to justify a bad status quo.
Maybe stop signs and the side of the road you drive on should be arbitrary and up to the drivers discretion. Heres why:
1) Not doing this assumes that drivers are INCOMPETENT!
2) FREEDOM!?!?
3) Kids these days ARE WIMPS!
This argument never makes sense. But its an easy one for the angry old guys to fire off and pat themselves on the back for saving society.
What a distasteful comment. You create some strawman and then launch rudely dismissive ad hominem arguments against them. Not a good look.
Would it kill you to look up 'ad hominem' sometime and thereafter use it correctly?
My response was clearly not an ad hominem, nor was it a strawman.
I was pretty dimissive of Leo's argument, but I did accurately summarize his argument before i ridiculed it. It was a ridiculous argument.
RTOR is often fine, because the cars are traveling at low speeds. That gives everyone time to see each other and avoid crashes.
It can be made safer in many places, though. Don't allow cars to park near the intersection, so drivers have a clearer view of pedestrians approaching the intersection. For bike lanes you can add cheap barriers that stop cars from encroaching on the bike lane.
Another option is the all-pedestrian signal when walkers cross in all directions at the same time, while cars in all directions have to wait. In places that have this type of signaling, there are usually so many pedestrians that no car can turn right on red during the pedestrian crossing time regardless of the law.
The scariest intersections are wide, high-speed one-way streets with bike lanes on the left side of the road. Drivers are not used to looking left when turning at speed (left turns are almost always done from a stop or very low speed on a residential street). There was a road like this where I went to college, and bikes/pedestrians were always dodging left-turning cars - many drivers never signal, so you wouldn't have any warning!
They're not used to looking where oncoming traffic is?
Turning is inherently dangerous when traffic of pedestrians and bicyclists is crossed.
Separate the incompatible traffic as much as possible and when that is not possible, always give the slowest speed the greatest deference.
If the light is red, it's red for the cyclists too. So they shouldn't be in the intersection. How many of those accidents are due to cyclists who think that traffic signals don't apply to them? Here in NYC (where, to be sure, we have no RTOR), the cyclists are utterly indifferent to traffic signals, direction signs, and pedestrians.
That’s not the relevant situation.
I'm a daily bike commuter in Seattle. The common conflict is when I am riding with the green and a driver waiting at a cross street doesn’t see me and turns right on red into my path. They see the cars go by and don’t notice the slower biker behind them.
A similar situation happens with pedestrians also crossing with the green in front of stopped cars who don’t see them and begin their RTOR.
RTOR is absolutely not the hill to die on (so to speak) for pedestrian safety.
The hill to die on is slowing cars the F down--and I mean slowing them down a lot, especially in cities.
That is quite clear in the (very interesting) "Toronto report" that Kevin links to, as well as in one of its main sources on this topic, which is this OECD report, which can be found here: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/06speed.pdf
Quoting from page 40:
"The probability of a pedestrian being killed in a car accident increases with the impact speed. Results from on-the-scene investigations of collisions involving pedestrians and cars show that 90% of pedestrians survive being hit by a car at speeds of 30 km/h; whereas only 20% survive at speeds of 50 km/h (see figure 2.5). The figure also shows that the impact speed at which a pedestrian has a 50% chance of surviving a collision is around 40-45 km/h."
Now for all of us troglodytes out here 30 km/h is ~18.6 mph and 50 km/h is ~31 mph. Speeds both above and below these limits make comparatively little difference to the survival of pedestrians hit by cars. See the S-shaped curve charted on page 41.
Below ~18.6 mph the chances of pedestrian survival (already relatively good) don't vary much as speed decreases (one assumes because the cause of death in these cases is likely less related to speed than to factors like collision angle, point of contact, duration of contact, contact with other surfaces, etc.).
And the same is true at speeds above ~31 mph, but in this case chiefly because, by that point, the vast majority of pedestrians hit by cars are already dead.
The obvious problem here is that the range between ~18.6 mph and ~31 mph is right where the typical US urban speed limit happens to be set (25 mph). And even this is far more typical of residential zones than of commercial and mixed use zones, where posted speeds are almost always higher--and observed speeds higher still.
In short, if we want to save a lot of lives, we should be maniacally focused on slowing cars the F down, especially on city & inner suburban streets, where pedestrians are actually present in more than trivial numbers.
Anything that achieves this (there are excellent suggestions in both reports) is a win in my book.
BuT mY CoNvEnIeNcE!!!!11!
The privilege given to (and unacknowledged by nearly all) drivers of vehicles in our built environment is ridiculous.
That's just a stupid argument m though, since you can't just slow all traffic down.
Separating peds/bikes from cars is more key than speeds.
Why are slower speeds stupid?
In other places you dimiss arguments because there wasnt enough data. Here you dimiss key data because it encourages an action you think is stupid. Your conclusion is consistent, but your rationale jumps around and often contradicts itself.
The idea that any slower speed is stupid obviously doesnt make any sense. If a limit of 20 is stupid because it is slower than 25....then 25 is also stupid because its slower than 30. And 30 is stupid as its slower than 35. And on and on this ridiculous line of thinking continues.
Youve made lots of comments here, but in this one you make it clear that safety and data on deaths isnt a factor in your rationale. Changes the perspective on your other posts that pretend to be interested in safety data, doesnt it?
FWIW, the closest I've ever been to being hit as a pedestrian is from drivers making a left on green and in the closest of those encounters, the car in question was a police car. They have since changed the signal at that particular intersection to give pedestrians a 3 second head start which seems to help some.
A recent study (in DC) is at the link below. The summary table is on p42.I have not read the study in detail (teeny print on my phone) but it includes 100s of observations of several intersections before and after NTOR was implemented there. These show large decreases (50-90+%) in both vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian conflicts after NTOR.
https://ite.ygsclicbook.com/pubs/itejournal/2022/may-2022/live/index.html#p=40
Does it, tho? It seems to be biased - like counting 'collisions' vs 'severe injuries'. Collisions aren't bad, if they result in fewer deaths.
Just moving the inconvenience and death to green lights doesn't really save overall lives.
It’s certainly possible that the study (by an advocacy organization) is biased. I can’t tell.
This was more in response to Kevin’s implying that there were no recent studies. There are.
As a daily bike commuter in urban Seattle I see car-bike conflicts due to RTOR frequently.
That’s anecdotal, and I don’t have enough experience yet with the intersections that are being converted to NTOR to see the difference.
But believe me, when I’m riding with the green - usually falling behind the mass of cars - I’ve learned to look really carefully for cars on cross streets that might not see me and decide to RTOR, directly into my path.
I used to live in a country with no right on red (well, left on red) and I actually preferred it. When you got to a red light, you just... stopped and waited for it to turn green, instead of looking around and trying to move again as fast as possible. It was almost sort of relaxing.
Anecdotal, I know, but I personally have been hit twice by drivers looking only to their left. Neither was serious, and maybe that's why the studies don't show an uptick in injuries (slow speeds and all that). But Kevin, I know you're not a pedestrian all that often, but it's it's pretty terrifying walking in front of a driver who is not looking at you.
And as a driver, right turn on red has all sorts of bad incentives and is frankly pretty stressful.
I’m a lifelong pedestrian and public transit user, and the only times I’ve been involved in accidents is the three times I was hit by drivers making rights on red without looking (all in Southern California, though I’ve lived in NYC, SC, and Boston without incident).
Of course, because they were accelerating from being stopped and slammed on the brakes once they realized they hit me, I didn’t even get bruises, so I guess I believe the stats showing right on red doesn’t significantly inflate serious/reported accident rates. Still not very fun to experience!
What about stop signs?
Also, pedestrian and bicycle rider accidents are almost always their own fault. No one driving a car is gunning for a cyclist or pedestrian. Don't we all remember how we were trained as kids to look both ways before crossing the street? And if not, after the first time you got hit, don't you remember that the next time and pay better attention? And cyclists, runners, pedestrians that know better otherwise, that get hit, are usually in a hurry with an adrenaline rush that blinds them while they trundle along. It's their own fault.
And while I'm bitching about this stuff: why do they always put the bicycle lanes on busy, main thoroughfares? It's like the street designers are trying to get cyclists killed. And why do cyclists use them anyway when nearby side streets are always less trafficked and safer? (Okay, shortcut to the nearest bike path, sure, but otherwise....)
In re RTOR, pretty sure that toothpaste is out of the tube.
"Also, pedestrian and bicycle rider accidents are almost always their own fault."
Bro, what? This is not how right of way works, nevermind how simple fucking physics works. The person/vehicle that is moving slowest is least able to avoid being struck by a faster moving vehicle.
Tell me you don't walk or ride a bike without telling me you don't walk or ride a bike. Would it kill you to get out of your 2-ton death machine sometime?
Plus one,
This is frankly, victim blaming.
So far, to the extent that roads in the USA have been designed for anyone, they've been designed for motorists. With vehicle bloat over the past couple of decades, we've seen a rise in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities. American drivers have become used to having it their way, with the infrastructure and the rules tilting toward the convenience of drivers at the expense of the safety of other users. RTOR isn't inherently bad, but it's part of a larger pattern in American culture that has led to safer motor vehicles and less safe roads for everyone else. It's a tyranny of the majority. In cities, where motorists get pushback from other road users, there is a slightly better balance. In the suburbs, it's pretty close to hopeless. Where I grew up in Florida it was impossible to ride my bike safely to work. When a bike path was proposed, we ended up with recreational paths that don't help people who want to use bikes for transportation, so it's still unsafe. So we get a cycle of laws and infrastructure that keep pedestrians and cyclists from using the roads.
My own lived experience gives me the impression that different cities have different driving cultures, some more murderous than others. Don't get me started about Chicago drivers.
I suspect that no-fault insurance might have something to do with the heterogeneity, but that's pure speculation at this point, and in any event, would at best explain only a smallish fraction of the variance.
I don't oppose RTOR on safety grounds; I hate the bullying that it represents: Cars have to have priority in all possible situations. They are the traffic that matters, the rest (bicycles, pedestrians, public transit) has to share whatever part of the streets that the cars happen to leave free.
The optimal priority should be walking: It is good for the climate and good for public health. Cars are the worst option on both those grounds.
Get a hat. Drivers respect the Hat. Particularly if it stands out. Of course, if everybody wears a hat your advantage vanishes.
There are two things going on that have led to this.
1) As vehicles have gotten more massive, collisions with bicycles and pedestrians have gotten more deadly. Pedestrian deaths and serious injuries have been increasing. I suppose they could raise insurance rates on more dangerous vehicles and start pressing criminal charges more often but I don't have earplugs good enough to deal with the response to that. Alternatively, they could try making the roads safer. Interestingly, there has been serious research on this. According to an article in Bloomberg, one demonstrably effective way of making intersections safer is to keep the roadway single lane at the corner rather than having an unregulated right turn lane. If nothing else, this eliminates RTOR for the second vehicle at the intersection.
2) More people are riding bicycles, scooters and the like especially in urban areas. These alternatives use less fuel, take up less urban space and have other advantages. There are lots of reasons to encourage this trend. Maybe Bird went broke, but I've been impressed with how many folks in my nearby big city are using these alternatives. Urban drivers understand how all this works, but many drivers are still surprised by and don't understand how to deal with a pedestrian in a crosswalk, a bicyclist in the bicycle lane or a light rail car running on light rail tracks. This problem may be transitional, but it's a real problem.
I live in a left turn on red state. Given the pro-car comments here, I'd expect to see not just support for RTOR but some enthusiasm for adopting LTOR nationwide. After World War II, the US went through a massive government funded experiment imposing suburban living to the detriment of urban life. We've been slowly recovering from it. More and more recent suburbs and suburb-like cities have been becoming denser and developing more traditional urban centers. If we are going to deal with the housing shortage, this trend is going to continue.
Sometimes it helps to change the defaults. Developers have to provide parking spaces in many areas even when there is a big market for housing without parking. Why not change the default? We could let the market decide. Similarly with RTOR and LTOR, we could change the default to red-light-means-stop and allow regions to post RTOR or LTOR signs as needed. Alternatively, they could provide a separate traffic lamp to regulate turns separately, a common practice in many areas.
Agreed on the vehicle bloat. My sister texted me a current photo of our street from sixty-odd years ago by way of comparison with a similar shot that out mother took in the late 50's; the difference in auto sizes is monstrous, though admittedly back then it was a neighborhood for young couples just starting out and now it's full of older people driving big rigs. Wouldn't do to get hurt in an accident you caused, don't you know.
"I live in a left turn on red state."
Wait...such states exist?
From one-way into one-way, I’m assuming. It’s the mirror image of RTOR; from the (left-side) curb lane into the curb lane.
There's no accounting in Kevin's "analysis" that, as a result of decades of being subjected to RTOR with few to nobody in government proactively acting to protect them, pedestrians have changed their behavior to avoid getting killed or injured. Perhaps they delay crossing even when they have the official right-of-way until they've made eye contact with turning drivers or until all cars are completely gone, lengthening their overall travel times. Perhaps they go well out of their way to avoid those intersections completely. Perhaps they avoid traveling at night or in inclement weather. Perhaps they buy flashlights and wear bright yellow/white jackets. Perhaps they sprint across the intersection. Perhaps they jaywalk mid-block where they have more time to react to a car suddenly RTOR. Perhaps they beg anyone they can find to drive them instead.
"RTOR has little to no effect on observed pedestrian deaths/injuries" is akin to saying "rape is practically non-existent in countries where all women are required to be under the guardianship of a man at all times." It's entirely possible that RTOR has not led to any noticeable increase in pedestrian impacts in the exact same way that greatly reducing women's freedom could lead to a reduction in rapes... but correlation is not causation, and some policies - even if "successful" from the point of view of the privileged in those societies - are clearly abhorrent in the costs they impose on their victims.
As an able-bodied pedestrian myself in the suburbs who often has to dodge out of the way to avoid RTOR cars, I find the costs of RTOR to be burdensome... and can't imagine what mobility- or sight-impaired pedestrians feel at high-volume high-speed RTOR intersections.
Apropos of nothing, when I'm crossing the street I am fully conscious of my status as "much smaller and easily broken than any car on the road." I don't take some theoretical "right of way" argument as the hill to literally die on. I'm paranoid about the intentions of drivers: does that turn signal actually mean he's turning? Does the lack of a signal mean he's going straight? (heh) Wait to see what the car is doing before stepping out onto the killing grounds!
And when behind the wheel, I also try to imagine the worst of pedestrians, because I have seen it. A couple of women darting out into traffic within 20 feet of the corner, not in the crosswalk, while the light is green for oncoming, 40mph noon hour traffic. Oh, and pushing a baby carriage. Of course.
Laws are good; enforcing them even better, but beware of human nature and human weaknesses. They can be every bit as dangerous as Elon's "Autopilot."
RTOR may be useful in some venues. It may be hazardous in others. Why can't different places have different rules?