I hate to pick on my old friends at Mother Jones, but Abigail Weinberg recently posted a story about right-turn-on-red (RTOR), a longtime staple of California roads that expanded to most of the country 50 years ago. It's received wisdom on the left these days that roads are for bicycles, not cars, so naturally the conclusion of the piece is right in the headline:
It’s Time to Ban “Right Turn on Red”
It’s an obsolete relic of the 1970s oil crisis. It’s dangerous to pedestrians. And, if you drive a car in the United States, you likely do it every day. It’s time to get rid of right-turn-on-red.
....The data on right-turn-on-red crashes might be scarce, but the existing studies suggest that these types of collisions—while rare—frequently involve a pedestrian or cyclist. Cars, instead of hitting other cars, often hit humans. Now, there’s a growing movement for cities to do away with the traffic law altogether.
Last week, the Washington, DC, city council voted to ban right-turn-on-red (RTOR) at most city intersections....Critics of the DC bill have pointed out the lack of data showing the dangers of RTOR, but many people who don’t use cars know instinctively how dangerous turning vehicles can be. “Our current safety studies fail to capture the reality of the constant near misses and confrontations that result between these motorists and pedestrians which can be observed daily just by observing a typical busy intersection with RTOR,” [Bill] Schultheiss says.
This is a single-source story featuring a bicycle expert named Bill Schultheiss who very obviously has a point of view to press. Because of that, he apparently didn't mention that although data on RTOR is thin, it's not nonexistent. Here's what a ten-minute Google search turned up:
- 1995: National, NHTSA, 1982-92. There were a total of 0-84 RTOR fatalities, probably toward the lower end of that range. About half involved pedestrians (44%) or bicyclists (10%). Roughly, then, there are probably 2-3 RTOR fatalities per year involving pedestrians and bicyclists.
- 2002: San Francisco, Fleck & Yee, 1956, 1994-96. This is a review of two existing studies. RTOR collisions are a tiny fraction (<1%) of all right-turn collisions. The accident rate is lower than right-turn-on-green. In addition, two other papers reviewing different states show no detectable change in right-turn injury rates before and after RTOR was adopted.
- 2008: Connecticut, Office of Legislative Research, 1994-2006. Out of 663 total fatalities, four were at RTOR intersections, all involving pedestrians or bicyclists. That's one fatality every three years. Of those, one involved a drunk bicyclist, one involved a wheelchair user who crossed against the signal; and one involved a bicyclist who failed to yield when he should have.
- 2009: New York City, NYDOT, 2006-08. This is a study of injuries before and after RTOR was allowed at specific intersections. Conclusion: "Accident rates not affected." About a third of injuries involved pedestrians (25%) or bicyclists (4%).
As a born-and-bred Californian, I naturally think of RTOR as God's will. Still, I don't have any special axe to grind here. I just think those of us who write about public policy—even if it's advocacy journalism—have an obligation to perform at least a minimal bit of research before we come out with guns blazing. It may be that there's some concrete evidence out there showing that RTOR really should be banned, but the research I could find shows just the opposite. RTOR doesn't seem to make more than a sliver of difference one way or the other.
"It's received wisdom on the left these days that roads are for bicycles, not cars"
Is this supposed to be gentle teasing or are you that much of a cranky old man now? It's the sort of hyperbole one expects to find on Fox News or Joe Rogan.
It's received wisdom from the mainstream culture that this is received wisdom on the left.
I'm a walker and I am more threatened constantly by bicyclists than I ever am by cars.
They're exceeded for arrogant entitlement only by dog owners and their little bags of dog doo doo left for others to deal with.
This! We need a way to upvote!
You are so right.
But, I’m cutting Kevin some slack. He got rid of Spades.
In my life, I have had three close calls with bicyclists while in a car. In all three cases, the bicyclist was traveling at right angles to me on the sidewalk, and used the crosswalk to cross in front of me at full speed when I otherwise had clearance to go.
Because they were on the sidewalk, I couldn't see them, in part because I'm looking for pedestrians, who go much slower, and in at least one case because they were hidden behind a building until the last second.
As a long time bicyclist I can unequivocally state that RTOR is dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians. Minor crashes are rarely reported and even significant crashes are often poorly documented. Too few studies working on a bad dataset is a big issue. Moreover, although I've never been hit in this situation I've had numerous instances of having to leap out of the way, yell, swerve, etc to avoid being hit. My *lived experience* tells me that RTOR should be banned...and we need to build more protected bike lanes and intersections.
In these RTOR instances of your experience were you cross traffic from the left? Cross traffic from the right? Or traveling in the bike lane parallel to where the car making the right?
Yes! I worked in DC for 17 years and i can attest to the dangers of using the crosswalk with the walk sign flashing when the intersection allows right turn on red. Cars blithely ignore the "yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk" signs and just turn in front of you in the crosswalk. Even worse land barges, trucks and buses have trouble seeing the pedestrians in the cross walk with fatal results. Finally there have been fatal bicycle accidents were buses turned right on red into a cyclist.
My other pet peeve with RTOR is cars at a busy rush hour intersection where cars are packed creeping along to get to the next red light, cars will turn into the oncoming traffic blocking the box and preventing cars going straight from getting through the intersection while their light is green. Those intersections desperately need to have No Turn on Red signs put up. This would happen on my way home from work back when I was still going into the office.
"have an obligation to perform at least a minimal bit of research before we come out with guns blazing"
I may occasionally give you grief, but this is why I've been been reading you for coming on two decades.
I wish that standard sounded laughably low. Instead, it is higher than that of most of what passes as professional media today. (I wonder if Rahul Ligma has found new employment yet.)
Or now you can just ask the AI
Human: Does right turn on red cause more accidents?
AI:
There is no definitive answer to this question, as studies on the matter have yielded mixed results. Some studies suggest that right turn on red does cause more accidents, while other studies suggest that it does not.
Human: Can you site the studies?
AI:
One study that suggests right turn on red does cause more accidents is the "National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey" conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Another study that suggests right turn on red does not cause more accidents is the "Traffic Safety Fact Sheet" published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
And it is free https://beta.openai.com/playground
You want to save cyclist lives? Ticket them for violating the laws they are supposed to follow. In my state, a bike is a vehicle and must obey all the same laws as a car. That means no sailing through red lights, no helping yourself to the front of the line by riding up on the sidewalk, or in the gutter, or splitting lanes. In my neighborhood, there is a gaggle of about 50 cyclists every Sunday who, if they see the light changing against them, block the intersection until their entire flock passes through. The rule is if you can't do it in a car, you can't do it on a bike either.
What state do you live in? Asking out of curiosity because I've been interested in comparing different bike laws between states.
NY here
In Oregon and Washington bicycles are considered vehicles, and accorded the full rights there of. Which means no riding on sidewalks and crossing against traffic lights.
In CA and MT bikes are considered vehicles.
Same here. Defensive biking my way these days. Never fight with a two ton machine. You don’t have to stop, as bikers hate stopping, just be cautious.
Good practice for bikers ( and motorcyclists too), never assume the other driver sees you. Actually not a bad practice for car drivers either.
Yes, cyclists do have to stop at stop signs and red lights.
Alas, some states allow bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. Oregon is one I believe.
I consider that short-sighted as it at best introduces jealousy when what bicyclists really need from drivers is respect. And they won’t get that by “getting away” with something fundamental other vehicle operators may not.
Most car drivers around here come pretty damn close to treating stop signs as yield signs, too. On the other hand, most stop signs should be yield signs. A full stop is seldom needed.
One of these days, a less-than-experienced driver, with traffic on both sides (and thus distracted, and with an obstructed view) will barrel through a just-turned-green light as some of those cyclists coast into her way.
I say "her" because I was witness to this happening once. The cyclists deserved the pain they endured, and are lucky none of them were seriously injured. The stop light in question gave them more than enough warning, but they decided to run the red light and paid a price for it. The only sympathy I feel is for the driver; while she will have learned to not do what she did, technically the light was green for her.
Doctors Lawyer and Dentists in spandex have right of way at all times and all conditions. It is the law.
Green and red, learn to tell the difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9GUpcaG24s
Bless you, PJ Camp. In nearly 60 years of driving, the only bike-car accident I was ever involved in was me on the bike not paying attention to a car trying to get into traffic. No stoplight was involved. And I've had several close calls when driving, in all cases where the cyclist was doing something dumb like ignoring a stop sign because, you know, those are for CARS. In one case, a couple of teenagers came flying out from behind some bushes after I had stopped at a stop sign.
So I am in favor of right-turn-on-red, where it's allowed. There are plenty of intersections that say "No turn on red," and I respect that.
My proposal (and I both commuted by bike for years, and drive) would be to treat a group of cyclists as a unit for traffic signal purposes.
That … article doesn’t even have the history of RTOR in DC correct.
It’s a great line in “Annie Hall” of course… Alvy’s (that is, Woody’s) pal is trying to convince him to move to California, and Alvy says in response “I’m not moving to a place where the only cultural advantage is you can make a right turn on red”.
I’m working from memory here; I take no responsibility for whether details are correct.
Don't you know you're not allowed to make favorable reference to Woody Allen's work? Sheesh!
Good point!
Clifornia culture? Why are you bringing yogurt into a discussion of traffic rules?
While at university I was hit by a car turning right on a red light as I was riding the opposite way in the crosswalk. When asked if I was OK and saying no, the driver drove away.
Crosswalks, like sidewalks, are for pedestrians, not bicycles.
And going the wrong way, no less. He got what he deserved.
As a cyclist and a driver I do concur RonR can be tough. However as cyclist I never trust cars period and I am always cautious when I hit corners ( especially if sidewalk riding, something common around here as traffic can be absurdly dangerous). As I a driver I would despise the end of RonR as wastes gas and time when you don’t have it. So cyclists, be cautious and never trust a car.
I’d be happy just with consistent enforcement of red light running in my state (WI). Running reds is an epidemic here. Or so it seems to this cranky old guy.
In WA too. I'm sure it's up fivefold, maybe ten-, in the last 3 years or so. I think it comes and goes. The last wave I remember was mid-90s ... about when Gingrich et al were stoking all the fires they could find.
Indiana here.
Running red lights is pandemic here.
I favor photo enforcement.
from one living south of you, avoid the red light camera scam...
We have it here in Tampa and I love it. Cops can't be anywhere at all times. If we can catch and ticket 100% of people running red lights that would be ideal. Of course I understand in some places there was apparently situations where traffic light timing was manipulated in order to increase the number of tickets. As long as those kind of tactics aren't used it seems like an ideal situation.
If memory serves me right not long ago you published a studiy that looked at csr accidents in various types of intersections, roads, etc,.and the one with the highest number of pedestrian collisions were indeed right hand turns.
In my experience as a pedestrian this isn't surprising at all. Cars are mostly worried about other cars, so when turning right on a red they will all check their left to make sure there is no incoming traffic, but only some actually look to their right to check for pedestrians or cyclists crossing the street.
Not only that, but that they were more dangerous and especially more dangerous when involving the types of large vehicles that Kevin likes to point out have basically entirely taken over the domestic car market.
Maybe RTOR isn't a big deal in terms of public safety. Fine! But I personally wouldn't have a problem erring on the side of caution: everything I've seen suggests the US has generally eschewed rich country best practices with respect to road safety, with predictably bad results. I figure if the intersection is busy enough to have a traffic light in the first place, it's busy enough to warrant extra caution.
RTOR is not inherently dangerous. At least not compared to the old system where you stack up a line of right turning cars behind a red light and a herd of pedestrians behind a don't walk light, and then simultaneously give the cars a green light and the pedestrians a walk signal.
This.
Also, why are cyclists or pedestrians crossing when the light is red.
Now, if you have an "all red/all walk" signal (no traffic flow, all crosswalks have walk signs)--it would make sense to have no right turn on red at that point in the light cycle.
"Also, why are cyclists or pedestrians crossing when the light is red."
Because that is when they should cross?
The pedestrians and cyclists are crossing the street in the direction perpendicular to the red light. Cyclists coming from the left, pedestrians coming from either direction.
Again, talking from personal experience only, but when turning right on a red, drivers tend to focus their attention on making sure there are no incoming cars from their left, often neglecting to check their right for any pedestrians about to start crossing the street from their right side, and to a lesser extent, also ignoring or not paying as much attention to whether or not there is an incoming cyclist crossing left to right, since their focus is on the car lane.
Ah--I was thinking of the wrong crosswalk. (The one that the RToR is turning across, rather than the one directly in front of it.)
Well, in fairness to you, J Franks example was of parallel traffic, where the both the cars and pedestrians get the green light and walk signal at the same time, and then both are stopped at the same time too.
The reason I think right turns on green aren't as problematic (or shouldn't be, I have no data either way), is again due to car driver self preservation. When turning right on green, the car driver will be less concerned (or none at all), about incoming cars from the left, so their attention focus will be on their right side, making it easier to identify any cyclists or pedestrian crossing the street they want to turn into.
In every state I've lived the walk signal gives pedestrians the right of way; your automobiliers are far more likely than not to be in violation of the law.
That is always the case everywhere I've ever lived or visited. Regardless of what light the car has, if the pedestrian is crossing a street with a walk signal on, the car has to stop and wait for the pedestrian to cross before the car is allowed to make the turn even if the car has a green light, and if a collision does happen when the pedestrian had a walk signal, it is the driver of the car who is always held responsible no matter what.
Many intersections simply have red/amber/green and no pedestrian signals.
I wonder what the law in bicycle friendly European countries is. Or is that too lefty to ask?
When I ride a bike I don't trust cars at all. When driving a car I resent and fear the bike riders in my small city who ride on the wrong side of the road. When I am going to turn right I glance right to spot pedestrians, then look carefully to the left for oncoming cars or bikes. Then I turn right. A bike rider zooming along on the wrong side of the road can arrive very quickly. I don't want to kill one, and so far I haven't, thank God, but I've had a few scares. I don't know I RTOR is any more dangerous than just plain right turns if the cyclist is reckless enough.
This whole bike mafia thing is a joke. It's a bunch of rich white dentists LARPing in a speedo pretending to care about the Tour de France and bragging about spending $25k on a fucking bike.
There are very, very, very few places in California where a bike is a viable commuter tool. It's not that I think that's good or bad, it just is. Where I live it's insane that there are bike lanes everywhere. They're always empty except for the aforementioned Viagra Spandex Mafia.
We need to quit subsidizing these yuppie hobbies and come up with a real transit solution.
Or give up because if cars are electric and powered off renewables... like... who cares?
I think doing away with RTOR is an over reaction. If there is a problematic intersection, it can be (and is) excluded "No Turn on Red" If you are taking a 90 degree turn and cannot stop for the sudden appearance of a bicycle or pedestrian, maybe you are taking the turn at too high a speed.
I do agree with the above observatons that red lights are routinely run. Every time I go through a yellow, especially when I was pushing the envelope, but still on the yellow, I check my mirror and watch a few or more cars come through behind me.
And speeding is endemic.
Fort Wayne, IN has lots of bike lanes (and seemingly always adding more) but I rarely see a bicyclist when I'm driving. There are also many miles of paved pedestrian / bicylist trails. I'm not on them enough to notice if there are bikes there.
When self driving cars come, and the bikes get RIFDed, this will be a problem solved.
Agree with this sentiment. We already can legally prohibit RTOR for problematic intersections.
I live in Boston, and have commuted quite a lot by bicycle. My observation is that there is pretty much NO traffic law enforcement at all for bikes, scooters, cars, trucks; any vehicles at all, really. In 8 years, I have literally never seen anyone pulled over for a traffic violation within the city limits. Given the lack of enforcement, I don't think a change in the law will have any effect.
In contrast, parking enforcement is vigilant.
If you're making a right turn on a red light, you should come to a full stop before turning. "Taking the turn at too high a speed" should not be a possibility.
Agreed. I should have been clearer. Especially since I have always understood it as "Right turn on red AFTER STOP."
“many people. . . know instinctively” sounds about as well-researched as “Many people are saying.”
Bike commuter here. You are correct. RTOG (or LTOG) is where the crashes happen, since the bike is in the crosswalk that the car is attempting to cut across.
For an RTOR crash, the bicyclist is crossing against the red light, so if s/he decides to cross anyway, will normally be very careful about any turning cars.
Huh. Who knew so many in Kevin's readership would be so anti-bike?
I'm translating here:
pjcamp1905: Damn those entitled scofflaws cyclists!
Dilbert: all those who bike are rich doctor lawyer dentist entitled assholes
Citizen99: yeah, bikers always say f-u to stop signs!
Morrospy: wannabe bikers, get a REAL METHOD of getting around and DRIVE A CAR. Bikes R 4 KIDZZZZZ
A few thoughts:
-Most people bike b/c they can't drive (for any number of reasons like ability, age, poverty, etc) or b/c they are trying to reduce their environmental impact. Call me crazy, but those sure seem like groups we should be supporting.
-A biker breaks a traffic law and they increase the risk of personal bodily harm. A vehicle breaks a traffic law (as many commenters note happens all the time) and other people outside their metal box (pedestrians, cyclists, other cars) pay through bodily harm. Am I the only one that sees a power imbalance there? I, for one, hate it when bikers break the law. It's annoying and inconveniencing. I'm SCARED when cars break the law (running reds, speeding). Perhaps our ABB (Anti-Bike Brigade) in the house can wrap their head around that.
-Our complete adoption of SOV transportation infrastructure has many more negative externalities than just GHG emissions (I'm looking at you morrospy): noise pollution, heat islands, particulate emissions, impermeable surfaces, social isolation, inactivity of the body, tire particulate runoff, and sprawl eating ever further into undeveloped land. This doesn't even begin to talk about destroyed neighborhoods--mostly low income and BIPOC--that have been destroyed in the name of freeway expansion.
But yeah. Fuck bikes.
This is such a passe discussion. The current issue is should you be allowed to make a LTOR from a one way street to another one way street. Why not?
Didn't Guido Calabrese counsel us to make the decision for accidents? If we are going to embrace Musk's allegedly self-driving vehicles, shouldn't we consider accidents the cost of doing business?
"shouldn't we consider accidents the cost of doing business?"
Isn't that what we've been doing since the dawn of transportation?
As someone who has spent much of my life being a driver and pedestrian in the US and France (no RToR), I would fully support a US ban on RToR.
Banning RToR makes for a safer, better experience for pedestrians and drivers.
I was appalled at there being no RToR when I first lived in France, but it didn't take long to figure out that this is a better way to regulate the flow of traffic.
This isn't a topic where there is good data collection, so relying on 'data' to make an informed choice is silly. Plowing over pedestrians on our way to Target and McDonalds might be part of the American Dream for many, but nobody will actually miss it.
Data point of one but the closest I've ever been to getting run over as a pedestrian is from people making a left on green while I was in the crosswalk with the walk light. It has happened multiple times at the same intersection and once the car in question was a police car. Intuitively right on green should be even more dangerous as that's when pedestrians have the walk light but nobody proposes to ban that.
There are also a lot fewer pedestrian deaths on roads explicitly designed for high car speeds and with no pedestrian infrastructure at all than there are on slower roads with lots of well used pedestrian infrastructure.
Possibly because the former design scares off most pedestrians from using the road!
Seriously Kevin this “analysis” you’ve presented is plagued with selection bias. Possibly pedestrians change their behavior significantly - waiting longer until they’re absolutely sure the right turning driver sees them first before even stepping off the curb, as well as just avoiding intersections entirely that have heavy volumes of RTOR - and that’s why pedestrian deaths from RTOR are so low?
Anecdotally, the *only* pedestrian I’ve ever hit with my car in 25+ years of driving was RTOR. That person simply picked themselves back up from the pavement, yelled at me and gave me the finger and continued on their way. Just one more unreported RTOR “accident” I guess that shouldn’t factor into analysis by the Kevins of the world in deciding whether RTOR should be restricted or banned.
There are plenty of countries that report fewer rapes than the US does. Middle eastern ones for example boast way lower official rape statistics. Of course, in those countries, the women have to dress “modestly,” act “modestly,” always be in the company of a male relative, and face honor killings if they report being raped.
When the onus is placed entirely on the victim to avoid the crime happening to them, as RTOR tends to do in practice to pedestrians since they’re the ones who are going to bear 95-100% of the negative consequences from it, the victims tend to change their behavior in ways to avoid any possibility of the crime occurring. That’s not a success story though: that’s a tale of one powerful group dominating and intimidating another inferior group.
You don't have to turn on the red light.
The feds mandated RTOR in 1975 as some sort of fuel-saving measure during the OPEC energy crisis. My state, Massachusetts, promptly put up signs on every single intersection disallowing it. They then randomly took them down in certain places where the bulk of the traffic was turning right. So no RTOR is the default, except when it's not, and people will honk at you for NOT noticing that a sign is NOT there. It's just another way that we show our friendly and open nature.
Here in Best Carolina, unlike most of the country, you cannot turn *left* on red (in other States you can do so when turning from one one-way street to another). Of course people do it pretty often because they learned to drive elsewhere. Efforts to legalize it tend to get sank by blind-pedestrian advocacy (Big Blind?).
Since every where else does it, if I visit DC how am I supposed to know about this ban?
Fuck cyclists they all act like they are gods of the road. I won't run them over but damn I wish I could.
This post seems like bait for the angry bicyclist crowd. My newish car has a camera in the right side mirror, which provides a great view along the right side of the car when I turn on my blinker. This assists greatly with detecting fast moving bikes during right turns. There's zero chance of eliminating right turn on red nationwide, but maybe we could mandate those cameras in new cars.
Perhaps it is chum.
Of course, when Special Newb says things like, "Fuck cyclists they all act like they are gods of the road. I won't run them over but damn I wish I could."
Through their actions, it appears millions of Americans share that sentiment, so I understand how bicyclists get angry that billions of dollars are spent on vehicle infrastructure with just a little paint here and there as the only bone to cyclist safety. Most folks ride b/c they can't drive (age, ability, poverty, etc) and/or to have a smaller environmental impact. All of those folks, it seems, we should protect and elevate. Yet, here we are in autocentric America, making comments about how we wish we could run over and harm cyclists. You know, teach those fuckers a lesson that... cars for the win?
Now now cyclists, don't be mad.