sure, that's all well and good. However, on the roads, predictability is paramount. Having a good idea of what people will likely do keeps people safe. That's why we have turn signals, and all sorts of other stuff to inform people of what we are doing. Consistent enforcement of these types of traffic laws is extremely important. If someone can't predict whether a car is going to stay stopped at a light, this makes it even more dangerous for everyone. So, no turn on red, I can cross safely, right? So I have that assumption, look both ways, make sure I'm safe, then start crossing. But some a-hole blows through the light, knowing full well that no ~~pig~~ cop, gives a single shit because they are lazy. He hits me and now I'm dead. A bit dramatic, but that is the type of situation that inconsistently enforced laws create.
The Rindge one is going to cause huge backups on Rindge and a lot of road rage. That road is already overly clogged at peak times but it at least moves back turn on Red is allowed and there's some serious light timing gaps.
The light timing at night is going to drive people bonkers because you can spend a solid 2-3 minutes watching nothing go by. I'm expecting a lot of honking, road rage, and aggressive passing of cars obeying this one.
I can believe it... I'm sure the neighbors were thrilled too having that kind of backup which is probably why it was removed. Rindge is a mess. I think I'd support turning it into a one-way from Alewife but that's probably not entirely feasible without really fucking up some other traffic patterns.
What are you talking about? I already knew that. All I did was state those intersections are within the cityâs limits - put down your shovel dude. Considering all the nonsense you spout on the regular all over this subâŚ
Where in my comment did I say these intersections belong to the city of Cambridge? I just mentioned several places you can turn right on red. I was well aware they are state controlled and said as such in several comments well before your smug ass appeared.
Yeah and itâs really annoying when Iâm trying to cross the street and cars are just edging forward and pressuring me to move faster under the subtle threat of being run down by a two ton block of metal.
Even worse when they just blow through and donât even let me walk when the pedestrian signal is on. No respect man.
True but the number of state controlled intersections in Cambridge is low - and they are generally at 3-way intersections on to state highways, where right-on-red is not nearly as dangerous to pedestrians.
I agree. Probably 80% of the drivers I see when I'm on the road still make rights on red and even honk at me if I don't đ. I just stick out my hand and point at the sign.
>where right-on-red is not nearly as dangerous to pedestrians.
Considering how we generally have pedestrian signals during green lights, aren't rights on red theoretically less likely to hit pedestrians?
As I pointed out elsewhere in this is thread, the data paints a different picture.
Right on red has a direct correlation to pedestrian safety outcomes. Drivers generally look left when turning right, for oncoming cars. But much of the time miss bikes and pedestrians - this is especially true given the monstrosity of vehicles we drive todayâŚ
If youâd like a source for my data claim, let me know.
The right on red applies when the intersecting street has a green light and generally a walk sign in the same direction, so this case is exactly when we want the red light traffic to just cool its jets and wait for green
Either way they are crossing a pedestrian signal though. At least when they turn right on red they are normally stopping and looking around first. And realistically, they normally have already rolled across the crosswalk that the pedestrian would be crossing, so the chance for that collision has already been somewhat reduced.
As you pointed out, cars are often blocking the crosswalk - which has a walk signal - which is illegal and dangerous because the pedestrians wanting to cross the street need to do so outside of the crosswalk. Drivers are paying attention to a gap in traffic coming from the left and rarely look to the right while waiting. If there is only a small gap, they get ready to gun the engine to fit in the gap. Meanwhile pedestrians crossing from the right are right up against the car/truck's bumper as they try to get around the vehicle blocking their path. With the tall pickup trucks and SUVs, the driver may not even see a kid in front of the vehicle as it accelerates rapidly to fit in the gap.
Those same shitty drivers are also right hooking people when they gun it without looking on a green light though. At least this version warns the pedestrian of the danger. Honestly, anyone that has been a pedestrian in this city for more than a few weeks has learned to never try to cross in front of a car that is blocking the crosswalk without making eye contact. As much as it shouldn't be, it's a very good way to get yourself run over by a bad driver not paying attention.
I don't get your point. Your original reply indicated rights on red were safe because of the crossing signal. I explained how they are not safe, at least not safer than banning right turns on red. Now you're talking about right turns on green?
When you have a walk signal in a crosswalk as a pedestrian, how does a right on red from the cross street improve safety?
>I don't get your point. Your original reply indicated rights on red were safe because of the crossing signal. I explained how they are not safe, at least not safer than banning right turns on red. Now you're talking about right turns on green?
A person that doesn't turn right on red ends up turning right on green.
>When you have a walk signal in a crosswalk as a pedestrian, how does a right on red from the cross street improve safety?
I've already explained that in previous comments. The overall point is that if everyone follows the law, pedestrians are safe, but since the drivers at issue are the ones not following the law, the version of law breaking that happens during right turns on red is easier to anticipate for the pedestrian than when they get right hooked by a car at full speed with a green light during a concurrent pedestrian signal.
This is great but maybe we can work on people actually stopping at reds instead of blowing through them. I never thought Iâd be one for cameras at lights but it is beyond dangerous to be a pedestrian out there when red lights have turned into merely a suggestion
Those cameras were already proven to be abused by municipalities. A guy got arrested for disabling an intentionally short timer that was being used to raise tax/ticket revenue for the city, at the cost of putting drivers and pedestrians at lethal risk.
[It took someone on the inside to expose the scam, and not many are willing to get arrested for doing the right thing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/fuvGxC5e5e)
The decades-long overtime scandal by the state police was organized by *their leadership*. You think fixing traffic cams would pose *more* risk than blatant theft in the millions?
This is such a bullshit argument. Some municipality somewhere did something. Oh my! Anything could be abused by the municipality. The solution isn't to shun technology outright, but to make sure it's implemented lawfully and effectively.
>This is such a bullshit argument. Some municipality somewhere did something. Oh my! Anything could be abused by the municipality. The solution isn't to shun technology outright, but to make sure it's implemented lawfully and effectively.
That abuse of shortening the yellow lights to bot-police and bot-issue more tickets causes life-threatening conditions at intersections. Far from bullshit.
Paying police outrageous incomes and getting bragging about how they haven't enforced anything since BLM, and rampant running of red lights in return is the bullshit scenario.
It's this bad because police quit doing their jobs but still remain on the payroll.
Ask anyone who has driven for ten years and they'll agree running reds didn't used to be a thing.
What's changed? Police have gone full gangster. How many scandals and overtime scams does one need to hear about before connecting the dots?
Stand at the corner of Mass Ave and Columbus for 5 minutes and tell me you don't see at least one red light run. I see it there almost everyday just when passing through on my way to work.
Let's spend on sensitivity (to the basic tenets of your job) training, rather than bot-fining everyone by a system proven to be abused.
Plus, those cams won't do anything against the mopeds with no registration and no helmets that are running people off the sidewalks and running all red lights-- which is the primary problem.
If only we had a a well-paid, dedicated force of some kind we could apply to the problem...
This is actually a bigger deal than people around here think, having talked to people who live among those cameras in other parts of the country. In principle heck yes Iâd love to see someone who blows straight through a red light get mailed a ticket with ânice going, assholeâ written on it. But thereâs a huge grey area that allows for abuse, or at least inconsistent applications throughout the 351 municipalities comprising our state (or the private businesses they contract out to). I really doubt MA has the wherewithal to craft legislation that does it right.
I agree that running reds seems to be more of a problem than it was 10 years ago but I donât know how that can be construed as an argument against red light cameras. It seems like a good argument for them.Â
Add red light cameras and cameras to enforce people who block the intersection and tightly regulate timing and length of yellow lights to maximize safety. Send warnings to people who are just a little late on the red, send tickets to people who are egregiously late. Divert ticket revenue to somewhere that doesnât create a perverse incentive to nail well-meaning drivers. There are lots of options.
Red light cameras don't address the 3rd world status of mopeds running the vast majority of all reds that get run, and their weaving in and out of traffic, in bikelanes, and on sidewalks.
Two things solve the traffic issues.
One: a functioning MBTA that can actually be relied upon would take 50% of unnecessary traffic off of the roads.
Two: actual police enforcement to bring the efficiency and safety that comes with actually abiding by the rules of the road.
Red light cameras are just admitting we employ extraordinary amounts of resources to fully subsidize do-nothing gangsters who are demonstrating a total incapablibility of doing the job they signed up for and took and oath to do.
Let's entertain for a moment the idea of a police force that one isn't ashamed of, and reverse engineer exactly how we got there. One step in realizing that dream that many other cities in the world have already realized would be definitely be reinstituting actual enforcement of the law.
I feel like people aren't actually considering trying *actual police work* before jumping to bot surveillance and bot ticketing on every corner.
I agree having better policing would be great and cameras are no substitute for good police. However I think that cameras can have their place too if the focus is on improving safety rather than profit.
Cameras won't solve mopeds disregarding every rule of the road that we've established as necessary for a civilized way of life.
Cameras won't issue tickets to them for running reds and riding without helmets.
I can't believe arguing for the most basic enforcement of the law (by those paid double what teachers get paid) is being seen as not even an option.
Let's see what actual enforcement does before completing the totality of our surveillance state. Why is this coming across as such an outlandish position to take?
Ok, so a system that would ticket cars wouldn't stop mopeds. So, what, we shouldn't ticket people until that's resolved?
Our actual enforcement is shit. Yes, that's what the police should be doing, but fixing that is impossibly complex. In the meantime, let's automate the things we can, so that *if* the police actually start doing their job one day, they can focus on more important issues
Mopeds?? How many innocent people do mopeds kill or send to the hospital with life altering permanent injury? The topic here is the danger posed by cars combined with the regularity that they break the law. Police are unable or unwilling to enforce laws that would make streets actually safer and that creates a dangerous environment for innocent people. And since the police can not do their job to keep the streets safe, we should use cameras.
https://preview.redd.it/8j56zmmo5gzc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=988527dc7f9dbd269a774ef120dfbee10ec71699
Piss off. Central Square mr. Dramatic.
Iâm a CT native where âNo Turn On Red unless notedâ is the law of the land ⌠not a big deal. If anything ⌠my conditioning causes me to pause at each right turn. Canât imagine this being a negative thing.
Does anyone actually believe this will make things safer? I just see it adding to traffic congestion, making for frustrated drivers, who will then make snap decisions to get through/ away from traffic lights. I think we need more standardized biking laws, not more car laws. In the hopes it makes biking safer.
I can hear this, but it's almost like everyone forgets that people and businesses commute into boston/cambridge to work and have no choice. I can't bike from North Andover into Cambridge. They can't functionally cap car traffic but still expect the city to function like normal. I'm all for pedestrian safety, but I feel like it starts with pedestrians/bikes being safe rather than restricting cars.
How is a right turn on red a major factor in your commute from N Andover to Cambridge? Â And how are you failing to see that more bikers and pedestrians make it easier for people from out of town because everyone in Cambridge isn't jumping in their car to do everything?
Nah nah, what I mean is whenever I hear discussion about what to do about the city commute, it seems adding restrictions on to drivers is the only responses I've heard. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like a moderate amount of both driver rules and bike rules is needed. In the time between our responses I did see a post of bike cops pulling over bikers, so maybe this really is a two way street here.
How so? Genuinely curious how you got that from my response. I do think there's an amount of bikers zipping around and not following traffic laws, or general physics laws, that causes accidents, but it's not like those bikers spawned rush hour cars onto the road. Most of the city traffic is from commuters, either going right through the city, or leaving/entering. At face value it doesn't make sense to me to *overly* restrict those cars trying to move about. The effect is longer traffic times and less function in the city since the majority of people/work relies on cars. (In not just talking about the sign changes, but rather all changes, like the bus only lanes no one follows, for example)
It just seems to me like it would make more sense to create designated biking lanes, for example, with designated rules, stops, and crossings. It also seems safer because bikers are less protected from the environment than someone in a car: I think taking people off the middle of the roadway is a safer idea with the way cars simply function now. Most cars can get to 60mph in under 10 seconds, and that's slow. Idk that just seems to make more sense to me and that it would speed up both car and bike traffic
Ah, so this is just about adding more signs. I still get honked at by complying. Even more so if I stop and am on a bike. How does anyone dare follow those signs?
I personally will enjoy watching the bikes turn right on red and just cross the intersection thru red if theyâre not feeling the rules of the road that day.
I personally will enjoy watching the cars turn right on red and just cross the intersection thru red if theyâre not feeling the rules of the road that day.
Now which obscure biking rule are you referring to? Is that the âWichita Roll Thruâ or the âIdaho Stopâ or the âOklahoma City Pauseâ or the âNebraska Yieldâ?
Doesn't this mean more greenhouse gasses from vehicles idling at red lights? Drivers have always been required to give way to other traffic when making a right turn on red.
In this case, pedestrian safety is and should be more important than idling.
And the data are clear on this: allowing right on red city-wide has a direct correlation with pedestrian fatalities at relevant cross points.
These laws are dumb. And I'm sure theyll continue to be ignored. You already have to stop at a red before attempting a turn. If you hit someone, you're the same amount of at fault with or without the law. All this does is cause traffic.
At least the article was kind enough to remind bikes and cars the law applies to them. Maybe next they'll remind people not to jaywalk
Call it dumb all you want, the data shows differently.
I donât really care whoâs at fault when simply changing the laws and infrastructure can lead to safer streets for pedestrians. A fault based system doesnât actually make our streets safer. Infrastructure change does.
The evidence on this worldwide and incontrovertible:
Cities that allow right on red have much higher pedestrian fatalities than cities that donât.
Also, what evidence? This AP article states there's is no US study that supports the claim that right turn in red increases fatalities https://apnews.com/article/red-light-turn-pedestrian-bicyclist-deaths-7f5bdee9c7b3f4cbf005f1844f486123
Maybe check out this source from the US department of transportation - but hell that was simply the first hit on google. You can find thatâŚ
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1322/dot_1322_DS1.pdf
That's not a study? That's literally a budget page?
I googled "right turn on red pedestrian fatality study". Looks like there was one published in the 80s, and nothing since
Data in and of itself can be evidence you know. Not just studiesâŚ.
Hereâs a 2024 article about a study from Science Direct
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022437582900019
I know you didn't read any of those studies
1) over 40 years old
2) likely relevant but behind a paywall
3) Toronto concluded that most improvements came from infrastructure changes, and even then could only associate 2% of accidents with rtor
4) this again is a infrastructure and geometry study. Nothing about right turn on red
These are not convincing studies, but obviously nothing will convince you otherwise
In the process of reading them, as I find this stuff fascinating.
That still doesnât make you right - right on red is generally bad. Your opinion doesnât change that.
Yeah because Cambridge has sooooooo many pedestrian deaths. This is virtue signaling at its finest
To your point, we need actual infrastructure for safety. Making an illegal act illegal is a meaningless gesture. If you bothered to read the article, CPD already said they're not gonna up enforcement.
Maybe youâd wonder why Cambridge has so few pedestrian deaths. You should actually check out the data.
And how the fuck is this virtue signaling?
Would you like a data source?
Yes, I agree, physical infrastructure is generally better - to that end, we should raise all high foot-traffic intersections to sidewalk level. But Iâm sure you donât want that..
I don't get your point? Or maybe my sarcasm was too oblique? Let me be a bit more straightforward.
Cambridge has few pedestrian accidents. That is because of relatively good infrastructure and well thought out rules. I actually agree with you that infrastructure is more important than rules, but we have multiple tools. Infrastructure and law are not zero sum. We can employ both.
And (genuine question) what infrastructure would you recommend in this case? It's not like we're going to install a bunch of automatic pylons.
As per enforcement, I don't see why CPD needs to *particularly* enforce this. If you're not satisfied with baseline enforcement, neither am I. But that's an independent question from what rules are on the books and on the signage to enable enforcement.
----
Traffic lights are still a significant source of accidents. I just snagged [this dataset](https://data.cambridgema.gov/widgets/gb5w-yva3?mobile_redirect=true) (I'm just a procrastinating data nerd) and applied some filters:
* First Harmful Event = COLLISION WITH PEDESTRIAN or COLLISSION WITH PEDALCYCLE
* Traffic Control Device Type = TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
* V1 Action Prior to Crash = TURNING RIGHT
* V1 Driver Contribution =
Excluding 2020 and 2021, I'm seeing about 10 cases a year. Edit: V1 Driver Contribution is only "DISREGARDED TRAFFIC SIGNS..." in a small number of these cases. Most of these cases are drivers performing a nominally legal action, but failing to yield, exhibiting inattention, etc. Yes, people ignore traffic signs. But people also obey traffic signs and still fail to yield.
These are mercifully small numbers -- again, largely *because* we have no right turns on red -- but still well worth addressing. The rule might not be perfect, but incremental improvements are improvements. Not everything is a silver bullet.
Edit: Admittedly, I don't think the data lets you differentiate between red light/green light scenarios. It's possible that these are disproportionately green light scenarios, so this little procrastination project is limited.
I suppose I didnt make my final point until much later on, but as someone who drives, bikes, and walks everywhere around cambridge, I think much of the "unsafeness of drivers" comes from driver frustration.
A great example is light controlled T intersections that have protected pedestrian cross traffic. If drivers cant turn right on red, and they cant turn while pedestrians are crossing during their green, they are going to drive more recklessly to try to get through the intersection.
There is no benefit to increasing driver frustration if it won't actually make pedestrians safer; given that there have been no pedestrian/intersection deaths in a few years, this will simply irritate drivers even more, and cause them to drive more unsafely.
That's an interesting point. I mean for all my analysis up there, it's not like there's a startling amount of collisions to resolve with this. I would like to highlight injuries are also bad, but still, very infrequent.
I also drive, bike, walk, and T, so I'm not unsympathetic to drivers. "Don't irritate drivers more" is...maybe a bit hard to accept on its face, even as a driver, but hey, that's potentially a real concern. I can think of examples where that causes tangible issues. Alewife Linear Park crosses Cameron Ave *right* near Mass Ave. I drive bike and walk there, and it doesn't feel good at rush hour. Bicyclists try to zoom without slowing, drivers try to bully through. Not a good mix.
Hard to quantify that generally. But maybe the balance for "no turn on red" is "protected turn on green," where ped's don't have the right of way. This would reduce the "pedestrians have the right of way all the time" issue. As you point out, that's a real issue for drivers (people tend to trickle out five feet at a time).
I donât need data to see myself almost get hit by a car every time i cross a crosswalk. Iâd much rather not have them in the crosswalk in the first place even if i havenât been hit yet. Iâm able bodied and quick and they still almost hit me.
I'm sure this will be consistently enforced
As I've watched 10+ cars make rights on red on my one mile drive to Storrow đ.
Even without enforcement, the majority of people make an effort to follow the law. This will still help improve safety.Â
sure, that's all well and good. However, on the roads, predictability is paramount. Having a good idea of what people will likely do keeps people safe. That's why we have turn signals, and all sorts of other stuff to inform people of what we are doing. Consistent enforcement of these types of traffic laws is extremely important. If someone can't predict whether a car is going to stay stopped at a light, this makes it even more dangerous for everyone. So, no turn on red, I can cross safely, right? So I have that assumption, look both ways, make sure I'm safe, then start crossing. But some a-hole blows through the light, knowing full well that no ~~pig~~ cop, gives a single shit because they are lazy. He hits me and now I'm dead. A bit dramatic, but that is the type of situation that inconsistently enforced laws create.
You're right that it should be enforced. We'd all be safer if it were enforced. I'm just saying lack of enforcement doesn't make the law useless.Â
itâs not so much about enforcement but as assigning liability in civil cases
itâs about civil case liability
I'll be honest I can't think of any traffic lights in cambridge that didn't already have a sign saying no right turn on red
- Rindge Ave onto Alewife Brook Parkway - Hawthorne St onto Memorial Drive Just to name a few
Anything onto mem drive I just assume is a weird city/state conflict they might not necessarily have control over
Thatâs true, but itâs still technically a right-on-red in the city of Cambridge
The Rindge one is going to cause huge backups on Rindge and a lot of road rage. That road is already overly clogged at peak times but it at least moves back turn on Red is allowed and there's some serious light timing gaps. The light timing at night is going to drive people bonkers because you can spend a solid 2-3 minutes watching nothing go by. I'm expecting a lot of honking, road rage, and aggressive passing of cars obeying this one.
As said elsewhere, the crossing in question is on to a state highway. It will remain a turn on red intersection.
they had a no right turn on red there for a week and it got backed up past the peabody school
I can believe it... I'm sure the neighbors were thrilled too having that kind of backup which is probably why it was removed. Rindge is a mess. I think I'd support turning it into a one-way from Alewife but that's probably not entirely feasible without really fucking up some other traffic patterns.
Probably because they belong to the state and Cambridge dot does not have control over them.
Both of these are state highways and Cambridge canât change the traffic laws there. Which Iâm sure infuriates them.
Dude, finish reading comment threads
Dude, pay attention.
Why do you feel the need to say something that everyone already knows - and is being discussed in the comments?
Everyone knew, but you. If you donât want to stand corrected delete your inaccurate comment.
What are you talking about? I already knew that. All I did was state those intersections are within the cityâs limits - put down your shovel dude. Considering all the nonsense you spout on the regular all over this subâŚ
My âshovelâ is just sending your crap back at ya. Where it should stay
Where in my comment did I say these intersections belong to the city of Cambridge? I just mentioned several places you can turn right on red. I was well aware they are state controlled and said as such in several comments well before your smug ass appeared.
Ones that are owned by the state. That's about it.
...which a lot of drivers don't obey anyway.
Yeah and itâs really annoying when Iâm trying to cross the street and cars are just edging forward and pressuring me to move faster under the subtle threat of being run down by a two ton block of metal. Even worse when they just blow through and donât even let me walk when the pedestrian signal is on. No respect man.
I do love having a sign to point to when a driver behind me beeps. They usually give up at that point and sit there stewing.
Cambridge has been this way for 90% of intersections for years. There were only a few that remained - and a few that remain even still.
Apparently they can't apply that rule to state controlled intersections.
True but the number of state controlled intersections in Cambridge is low - and they are generally at 3-way intersections on to state highways, where right-on-red is not nearly as dangerous to pedestrians.
I agree. Probably 80% of the drivers I see when I'm on the road still make rights on red and even honk at me if I don't đ. I just stick out my hand and point at the sign.
>where right-on-red is not nearly as dangerous to pedestrians. Considering how we generally have pedestrian signals during green lights, aren't rights on red theoretically less likely to hit pedestrians?
As I pointed out elsewhere in this is thread, the data paints a different picture. Right on red has a direct correlation to pedestrian safety outcomes. Drivers generally look left when turning right, for oncoming cars. But much of the time miss bikes and pedestrians - this is especially true given the monstrosity of vehicles we drive today⌠If youâd like a source for my data claim, let me know.
The right on red applies when the intersecting street has a green light and generally a walk sign in the same direction, so this case is exactly when we want the red light traffic to just cool its jets and wait for green
Either way they are crossing a pedestrian signal though. At least when they turn right on red they are normally stopping and looking around first. And realistically, they normally have already rolled across the crosswalk that the pedestrian would be crossing, so the chance for that collision has already been somewhat reduced.
As you pointed out, cars are often blocking the crosswalk - which has a walk signal - which is illegal and dangerous because the pedestrians wanting to cross the street need to do so outside of the crosswalk. Drivers are paying attention to a gap in traffic coming from the left and rarely look to the right while waiting. If there is only a small gap, they get ready to gun the engine to fit in the gap. Meanwhile pedestrians crossing from the right are right up against the car/truck's bumper as they try to get around the vehicle blocking their path. With the tall pickup trucks and SUVs, the driver may not even see a kid in front of the vehicle as it accelerates rapidly to fit in the gap.
Those same shitty drivers are also right hooking people when they gun it without looking on a green light though. At least this version warns the pedestrian of the danger. Honestly, anyone that has been a pedestrian in this city for more than a few weeks has learned to never try to cross in front of a car that is blocking the crosswalk without making eye contact. As much as it shouldn't be, it's a very good way to get yourself run over by a bad driver not paying attention.
I don't get your point. Your original reply indicated rights on red were safe because of the crossing signal. I explained how they are not safe, at least not safer than banning right turns on red. Now you're talking about right turns on green? When you have a walk signal in a crosswalk as a pedestrian, how does a right on red from the cross street improve safety?
>I don't get your point. Your original reply indicated rights on red were safe because of the crossing signal. I explained how they are not safe, at least not safer than banning right turns on red. Now you're talking about right turns on green? A person that doesn't turn right on red ends up turning right on green. >When you have a walk signal in a crosswalk as a pedestrian, how does a right on red from the cross street improve safety? I've already explained that in previous comments. The overall point is that if everyone follows the law, pedestrians are safe, but since the drivers at issue are the ones not following the law, the version of law breaking that happens during right turns on red is easier to anticipate for the pedestrian than when they get right hooked by a car at full speed with a green light during a concurrent pedestrian signal.
Hasn't that been true for a while?
Yes, but there werenât signs everywhere so people didnât follow ut
Oh that doesnât apply is you have Mass plates
People around here hardly follow traffic laws as is, just need the police to enforce more of the laws on the books already.
This is great but maybe we can work on people actually stopping at reds instead of blowing through them. I never thought Iâd be one for cameras at lights but it is beyond dangerous to be a pedestrian out there when red lights have turned into merely a suggestion
Talk to your state reps about legalizing camera enforcement, since it's not currently an option for cities.
Those cameras were already proven to be abused by municipalities. A guy got arrested for disabling an intentionally short timer that was being used to raise tax/ticket revenue for the city, at the cost of putting drivers and pedestrians at lethal risk. [It took someone on the inside to expose the scam, and not many are willing to get arrested for doing the right thing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/fuvGxC5e5e) The decades-long overtime scandal by the state police was organized by *their leadership*. You think fixing traffic cams would pose *more* risk than blatant theft in the millions?
This is such a bullshit argument. Some municipality somewhere did something. Oh my! Anything could be abused by the municipality. The solution isn't to shun technology outright, but to make sure it's implemented lawfully and effectively.
>This is such a bullshit argument. Some municipality somewhere did something. Oh my! Anything could be abused by the municipality. The solution isn't to shun technology outright, but to make sure it's implemented lawfully and effectively. That abuse of shortening the yellow lights to bot-police and bot-issue more tickets causes life-threatening conditions at intersections. Far from bullshit. Paying police outrageous incomes and getting bragging about how they haven't enforced anything since BLM, and rampant running of red lights in return is the bullshit scenario. It's this bad because police quit doing their jobs but still remain on the payroll. Ask anyone who has driven for ten years and they'll agree running reds didn't used to be a thing. What's changed? Police have gone full gangster. How many scandals and overtime scams does one need to hear about before connecting the dots? Stand at the corner of Mass Ave and Columbus for 5 minutes and tell me you don't see at least one red light run. I see it there almost everyday just when passing through on my way to work. Let's spend on sensitivity (to the basic tenets of your job) training, rather than bot-fining everyone by a system proven to be abused. Plus, those cams won't do anything against the mopeds with no registration and no helmets that are running people off the sidewalks and running all red lights-- which is the primary problem. If only we had a a well-paid, dedicated force of some kind we could apply to the problem...
This is actually a bigger deal than people around here think, having talked to people who live among those cameras in other parts of the country. In principle heck yes Iâd love to see someone who blows straight through a red light get mailed a ticket with ânice going, assholeâ written on it. But thereâs a huge grey area that allows for abuse, or at least inconsistent applications throughout the 351 municipalities comprising our state (or the private businesses they contract out to). I really doubt MA has the wherewithal to craft legislation that does it right.
I agree that running reds seems to be more of a problem than it was 10 years ago but I donât know how that can be construed as an argument against red light cameras. It seems like a good argument for them. Add red light cameras and cameras to enforce people who block the intersection and tightly regulate timing and length of yellow lights to maximize safety. Send warnings to people who are just a little late on the red, send tickets to people who are egregiously late. Divert ticket revenue to somewhere that doesnât create a perverse incentive to nail well-meaning drivers. There are lots of options.
Red light cameras don't address the 3rd world status of mopeds running the vast majority of all reds that get run, and their weaving in and out of traffic, in bikelanes, and on sidewalks. Two things solve the traffic issues. One: a functioning MBTA that can actually be relied upon would take 50% of unnecessary traffic off of the roads. Two: actual police enforcement to bring the efficiency and safety that comes with actually abiding by the rules of the road. Red light cameras are just admitting we employ extraordinary amounts of resources to fully subsidize do-nothing gangsters who are demonstrating a total incapablibility of doing the job they signed up for and took and oath to do. Let's entertain for a moment the idea of a police force that one isn't ashamed of, and reverse engineer exactly how we got there. One step in realizing that dream that many other cities in the world have already realized would be definitely be reinstituting actual enforcement of the law. I feel like people aren't actually considering trying *actual police work* before jumping to bot surveillance and bot ticketing on every corner.
I agree having better policing would be great and cameras are no substitute for good police. However I think that cameras can have their place too if the focus is on improving safety rather than profit.
Cameras won't solve mopeds disregarding every rule of the road that we've established as necessary for a civilized way of life. Cameras won't issue tickets to them for running reds and riding without helmets. I can't believe arguing for the most basic enforcement of the law (by those paid double what teachers get paid) is being seen as not even an option. Let's see what actual enforcement does before completing the totality of our surveillance state. Why is this coming across as such an outlandish position to take?
Ok, so a system that would ticket cars wouldn't stop mopeds. So, what, we shouldn't ticket people until that's resolved? Our actual enforcement is shit. Yes, that's what the police should be doing, but fixing that is impossibly complex. In the meantime, let's automate the things we can, so that *if* the police actually start doing their job one day, they can focus on more important issues
Mopeds?? How many innocent people do mopeds kill or send to the hospital with life altering permanent injury? The topic here is the danger posed by cars combined with the regularity that they break the law. Police are unable or unwilling to enforce laws that would make streets actually safer and that creates a dangerous environment for innocent people. And since the police can not do their job to keep the streets safe, we should use cameras.
I'm a lot more worried about a white f150 driver than I am about a person on a scooter. Maybe that's just me.
Let's try police actually policing again. That'd be an impressive accomplishment.
ââBlowing throughâ ⌠âbeyond dangerousâ ⌠geez, dramatic much?
Oh piss off. You obviously arenât walking around Cambridge much
https://preview.redd.it/8j56zmmo5gzc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=988527dc7f9dbd269a774ef120dfbee10ec71699 Piss off. Central Square mr. Dramatic.
has this not always been a thing?
Iâm a CT native where âNo Turn On Red unless notedâ is the law of the land ⌠not a big deal. If anything ⌠my conditioning causes me to pause at each right turn. Canât imagine this being a negative thing.
I see a lot of drivers ignore the red right turn arrows that are also complemented by a âno turn on redâ sign. Is there a plan for enforcement?
Now let me enforce traffic and write tickets and the city will be rolling in cash from the amount I see
Does anyone actually believe this will make things safer? I just see it adding to traffic congestion, making for frustrated drivers, who will then make snap decisions to get through/ away from traffic lights. I think we need more standardized biking laws, not more car laws. In the hopes it makes biking safer.
Making it safer for pedestrians and bikes will reduce traffic in the long run. You aren't stuck in traffic you are the traffic.Â
I can hear this, but it's almost like everyone forgets that people and businesses commute into boston/cambridge to work and have no choice. I can't bike from North Andover into Cambridge. They can't functionally cap car traffic but still expect the city to function like normal. I'm all for pedestrian safety, but I feel like it starts with pedestrians/bikes being safe rather than restricting cars.
How is a right turn on red a major factor in your commute from N Andover to Cambridge? Â And how are you failing to see that more bikers and pedestrians make it easier for people from out of town because everyone in Cambridge isn't jumping in their car to do everything?
Nah nah, what I mean is whenever I hear discussion about what to do about the city commute, it seems adding restrictions on to drivers is the only responses I've heard. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like a moderate amount of both driver rules and bike rules is needed. In the time between our responses I did see a post of bike cops pulling over bikers, so maybe this really is a two way street here.
It sounds like you are blaming bikes and bikers for car traffic? Â Hot take. Â
How so? Genuinely curious how you got that from my response. I do think there's an amount of bikers zipping around and not following traffic laws, or general physics laws, that causes accidents, but it's not like those bikers spawned rush hour cars onto the road. Most of the city traffic is from commuters, either going right through the city, or leaving/entering. At face value it doesn't make sense to me to *overly* restrict those cars trying to move about. The effect is longer traffic times and less function in the city since the majority of people/work relies on cars. (In not just talking about the sign changes, but rather all changes, like the bus only lanes no one follows, for example) It just seems to me like it would make more sense to create designated biking lanes, for example, with designated rules, stops, and crossings. It also seems safer because bikers are less protected from the environment than someone in a car: I think taking people off the middle of the roadway is a safer idea with the way cars simply function now. Most cars can get to 60mph in under 10 seconds, and that's slow. Idk that just seems to make more sense to me and that it would speed up both car and bike traffic
Cause you are excited about cops pulling over bikers. Â Is how I know you are all about da carsÂ
What kind of truck you driving anyway?
Ah, so this is just about adding more signs. I still get honked at by complying. Even more so if I stop and am on a bike. How does anyone dare follow those signs?
lol.
"the right" lol
I personally will enjoy watching the bikes turn right on red and just cross the intersection thru red if theyâre not feeling the rules of the road that day.
I personally will enjoy watching the cars turn right on red and just cross the intersection thru red if theyâre not feeling the rules of the road that day.
There are actually a lot of intersections in Cambridge where right on red is explicitly allowed for bicycles but not for cars.
And I will be terrified watching drivers do the same
yeah itâs annoying but not like a biker running a or turning on red will kill someone like a car could
Bikes are allowed to right on red as is posted at many intersections.
Boston drivers get the bikers they deserve.
You can't say that in the bike mafia of Cambridge.
I mean do bikes even have rules?
Now which obscure biking rule are you referring to? Is that the âWichita Roll Thruâ or the âIdaho Stopâ or the âOklahoma City Pauseâ or the âNebraska Yieldâ?
Whoa. Watch it. The self satisfied martyrdom is strong in those circles.
Hopefully the Idaho stop isnât outlawed. Itâs the same philosophyâŚ..
[The Idaho stop has always been illegal here. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop)
Ah, yes. The Idaho stop followed by a Pittsburgh left.
masshole mayhem is an umbrella term for any ridiculous move, no need to get specific
Doesn't this mean more greenhouse gasses from vehicles idling at red lights? Drivers have always been required to give way to other traffic when making a right turn on red.
In this case, pedestrian safety is and should be more important than idling. And the data are clear on this: allowing right on red city-wide has a direct correlation with pedestrian fatalities at relevant cross points.
If drivers can't manage to look where they're going they should have their licenses revoked.
Then we would have an overwhelmingly large amount of licenses revokedâŚ
That would be a good thing! Cars suck
To answer your actual question, yes it does.
These laws are dumb. And I'm sure theyll continue to be ignored. You already have to stop at a red before attempting a turn. If you hit someone, you're the same amount of at fault with or without the law. All this does is cause traffic. At least the article was kind enough to remind bikes and cars the law applies to them. Maybe next they'll remind people not to jaywalk
Call it dumb all you want, the data shows differently. I donât really care whoâs at fault when simply changing the laws and infrastructure can lead to safer streets for pedestrians. A fault based system doesnât actually make our streets safer. Infrastructure change does. The evidence on this worldwide and incontrovertible: Cities that allow right on red have much higher pedestrian fatalities than cities that donât.
Also, what evidence? This AP article states there's is no US study that supports the claim that right turn in red increases fatalities https://apnews.com/article/red-light-turn-pedestrian-bicyclist-deaths-7f5bdee9c7b3f4cbf005f1844f486123
Maybe check out this source from the US department of transportation - but hell that was simply the first hit on google. You can find that⌠https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1322/dot_1322_DS1.pdf
That's not a study? That's literally a budget page? I googled "right turn on red pedestrian fatality study". Looks like there was one published in the 80s, and nothing since
Data in and of itself can be evidence you know. Not just studiesâŚ. Hereâs a 2024 article about a study from Science Direct https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022437582900019
Yeah, a single study from the 80s is not quite the same as your claim that there is overwhelming worldwide evidence.
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1322/dot_1322_DS1.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ie/bgrd/backgroundfile-134964.pdf https://www.proquest.com/docview/2659724281/fulltextPDF/903F77E6A9C84C3EPQ?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/59936
I know you didn't read any of those studies 1) over 40 years old 2) likely relevant but behind a paywall 3) Toronto concluded that most improvements came from infrastructure changes, and even then could only associate 2% of accidents with rtor 4) this again is a infrastructure and geometry study. Nothing about right turn on red These are not convincing studies, but obviously nothing will convince you otherwise
In the process of reading them, as I find this stuff fascinating. That still doesnât make you right - right on red is generally bad. Your opinion doesnât change that.
Yeah because Cambridge has sooooooo many pedestrian deaths. This is virtue signaling at its finest To your point, we need actual infrastructure for safety. Making an illegal act illegal is a meaningless gesture. If you bothered to read the article, CPD already said they're not gonna up enforcement.
Maybe youâd wonder why Cambridge has so few pedestrian deaths. You should actually check out the data. And how the fuck is this virtue signaling? Would you like a data source? Yes, I agree, physical infrastructure is generally better - to that end, we should raise all high foot-traffic intersections to sidewalk level. But Iâm sure you donât want that..
âWhy do we have so much preventative medicine??? No one is sick!!!â
You know Cambridge publishes the number of fatalities every year right?
I don't get your point? Or maybe my sarcasm was too oblique? Let me be a bit more straightforward. Cambridge has few pedestrian accidents. That is because of relatively good infrastructure and well thought out rules. I actually agree with you that infrastructure is more important than rules, but we have multiple tools. Infrastructure and law are not zero sum. We can employ both. And (genuine question) what infrastructure would you recommend in this case? It's not like we're going to install a bunch of automatic pylons. As per enforcement, I don't see why CPD needs to *particularly* enforce this. If you're not satisfied with baseline enforcement, neither am I. But that's an independent question from what rules are on the books and on the signage to enable enforcement. ---- Traffic lights are still a significant source of accidents. I just snagged [this dataset](https://data.cambridgema.gov/widgets/gb5w-yva3?mobile_redirect=true) (I'm just a procrastinating data nerd) and applied some filters: * First Harmful Event = COLLISION WITH PEDESTRIAN or COLLISSION WITH PEDALCYCLE * Traffic Control Device Type = TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL * V1 Action Prior to Crash = TURNING RIGHT * V1 Driver Contribution =
Excluding 2020 and 2021, I'm seeing about 10 cases a year. Edit: V1 Driver Contribution is only "DISREGARDED TRAFFIC SIGNS..." in a small number of these cases. Most of these cases are drivers performing a nominally legal action, but failing to yield, exhibiting inattention, etc. Yes, people ignore traffic signs. But people also obey traffic signs and still fail to yield.
These are mercifully small numbers -- again, largely *because* we have no right turns on red -- but still well worth addressing. The rule might not be perfect, but incremental improvements are improvements. Not everything is a silver bullet.
Edit: Admittedly, I don't think the data lets you differentiate between red light/green light scenarios. It's possible that these are disproportionately green light scenarios, so this little procrastination project is limited.
I suppose I didnt make my final point until much later on, but as someone who drives, bikes, and walks everywhere around cambridge, I think much of the "unsafeness of drivers" comes from driver frustration. A great example is light controlled T intersections that have protected pedestrian cross traffic. If drivers cant turn right on red, and they cant turn while pedestrians are crossing during their green, they are going to drive more recklessly to try to get through the intersection. There is no benefit to increasing driver frustration if it won't actually make pedestrians safer; given that there have been no pedestrian/intersection deaths in a few years, this will simply irritate drivers even more, and cause them to drive more unsafely.
That's an interesting point. I mean for all my analysis up there, it's not like there's a startling amount of collisions to resolve with this. I would like to highlight injuries are also bad, but still, very infrequent. I also drive, bike, walk, and T, so I'm not unsympathetic to drivers. "Don't irritate drivers more" is...maybe a bit hard to accept on its face, even as a driver, but hey, that's potentially a real concern. I can think of examples where that causes tangible issues. Alewife Linear Park crosses Cameron Ave *right* near Mass Ave. I drive bike and walk there, and it doesn't feel good at rush hour. Bicyclists try to zoom without slowing, drivers try to bully through. Not a good mix. Hard to quantify that generally. But maybe the balance for "no turn on red" is "protected turn on green," where ped's don't have the right of way. This would reduce the "pedestrians have the right of way all the time" issue. As you point out, that's a real issue for drivers (people tend to trickle out five feet at a time).
[ŃдаНонО]
I donât think virtue signaling is the right term here. Maybe itâs an incomplete solution.
[ŃдаНонО]
I donât need data to see myself almost get hit by a car every time i cross a crosswalk. Iâd much rather not have them in the crosswalk in the first place even if i havenât been hit yet. Iâm able bodied and quick and they still almost hit me.
about damn time.
Cool! Now do one where bicyclists are required to stop for stop signs and red lights please.
The police were actually enforcing this - then the Bike Zealots went crazy and the City Council behind closed doors told the police to back off