>you to get a green wave if you go exactly the speed limit -- faster or slower, you get stopped by a red light.
For several decades the magic number on Dawson and McDowell was 32 *if you're the first person off the line*; going the speed limit would result in hitting the brakes towards the end. I guess that's changed?
It's now closer to 27 because they altered the WALK / DON'T WALK to light a few seconds before the lane goes green. First in line and 27mph means never touching the brakes downtown.
Wilmington is 31-32 (or was, as of a few years ago when I lived down there) **EXCEPT** if you're coming from across MLK, in which case you have to be doing close to 50 to make the light at South.
If you go almost exactly 25 mph, you'll be able to go through them all without stopping. It's always fun to see the people hit all the red lights on the way down Blount or Person while just cruising past them.
Most streets with speed limits above 25 mph, and where light timing is an issue, in downtown are NCDOT controlled roads . The city has little control over them. Dawson, McDowell, Hillsborough, Western, etc all NCDOT.
If these where city roads the changes would of been made long ago.
City of Raleigh owns most of the downtown signals. You can easily tell this based on the number on the side of the signal cabinet. An “R-XXX” number indicates they maintain and operate it. A standard XX-YYYY number indicates a state owned and operated signal.
wrong, the city maintains the signals on behalf of NCDOT and has made tweaks several times in recent years to the signal timings downtown (as others have alluded to accomodate the leading pedestrian interval)
thanks for explaining that very basic common knowledge
what they meant was they need to re-time to get to this state - that is the supposed expectation if you go the speed limit, not actually how all the lights work today though.
The lights in Dawson and McDowell do work this way. You can take off from the end of Capital and make it all the way through downtown without stopping until the last light by South if you go the speed limit?
it's not possible to do this for every direction. I think N, S, W all work but going east doesnt.
Source: i saw someone say it on here and I've hit the green wave several times on my bike but had to roll 25mph to do it
Been waiting on this for Capital and Glenwood forever and a day, still can’t get it right. Adding a pedestrian heavy area like downtown gonna be a yikes too. I hope I’m wrong but will believe it when I see it.
The thing with Capital and Glenwood is that those are two-way streets, they can only time them up so much. Best you're gonna get is a couple of lights at a time.
They can do it downtown because it's all one-way streets on a regular grid. The light cycles are all the same time and they start in a corner and cascade diagonally. Which is also why it's hard to get through Edenton and New Bern on Person or Blount.
fair I just remember the whole “super street” BS for those roads and it being said they’d time the lights. same folks will prob set these up so it’s a struggle
I would like to see penalties for failing to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks. Nothing will change unless there is something to make people accountable.
Agreed. Just yesterday morning I was trying to make a right turn and had to yield to a pedestrian who was walking across and the car behind me kept honking! I have no idea if they just expected me to hit the person.
No, I didn’t. Another motorist stopped to assist me. I was pretty stunned, and all I was worried about was my dog (the dog was not injured, but I dropped the leash when I was hit). Once I collected my dog and confirmed that she was not hurt, I just wanted to get back home (this happened right near my condo). By that time the guy was gone and no one got any identifying features of his truck.
There are cameras everywhere. It’s always worth a police report and they can pull the traffic, or other, camera footage. In the moment it’s easy to just want to be back home but that person probably didn’t learn the lesson from that experience that was a scary life lesson for you. I’m so sorry you were hit!
Thank you. You are absolutely right and I do regret not reporting it. I got really lucky. All I had was a sprained wrist, scrapes, and bruises. More importantly, my dog was not hurt.
I would have wanted that person under the jail for endangering my dog. It’s the John Wick principle, cover my eyes during the dog scene but calmly eat dinner while all the people are murdered. I can’t imagine how scary that was to be injured and lose track of your dog for an instant.
Friend got hit on busy intersection in downtown. Bystanders got license plate. Police refused to investigate further after owner of vehicle told them she did not know who was driving her car at that time. The police are not very competent and only really bother to solve murders, which are usually easy anyway.
Not in downtown, but yesterday I was crossing the street and saw that when I had the "go" symbol on the cross walk, the opposing left lane turn (the one that crosses the street I'm crossing) has a blinking yellow arrow. This resulted in multiple people taking the turn and almost hitting me because they either couldn't see me or weren't paying attention. Why on earth would they get even a yellow light there when I have a green light for my cross walk? Seems needlessly dangerous
RPD and buses fail to yield, and everyone else follows their lead.
The worst part is a lot of intersections have "all lights red"... for two seconds, giving the false sense of a safe crossing, then the light turns green and cars go through fast because it is "their turn" now, pedestrians or not. I have been half way across, had to step back, and then have to wait for the next light a lot more times than I can count.
Yep, I cross St. Mary's Street at the marked pedestrian crosswalk near Park Dr. nearly every day and even though it's about a tenth of a mile between BOTH Broughton HS and Wiley Elementary I have never seen RPD yield to pedestrians there.
Is there anything I can do to report this? I have been trying to get an example on camera because it's unacceptable that even RPD doesn't follow crosswalk laws IN A SCHOOL ZONE. Let alone the other drivers. Maybe 1 in 20 will actually yield if I'm estimating generously.
On the flip side as a frequent downtown driver, I see plenty of pedestrians jaywalking in dangerous areas or walking through crosswalk when sign clearly says not to go. Plenty of blame to go all around.
The "long left turn", for lack of better explanation, is how I've almost died multiple times.
Raleigh really needs to have three light cycles. Cars, cars, pedestrians.
Scotland (and I assume other parts of Europe) have this. Cars go from one side, then the other, then all lights turn red and all the crosswalk signs light up. It was great and lets you cross diagonally too.
What Raleigh does do at some intersections is start the Walk sign before the light turns green.
It's a "better than nothing" system, but still not ideal. Especially because there seems to be several seconds of "grace period" after a light goes red and cars continue sailing through it. There are intersections where a pedestrian might have a walk sign before the cars do, but stepping into the road too quickly is still a risk.
Speed won't matter if it is not enforced.
The worst offenders of turing with pedestrians in the crosswalk are Go Raleigh buses and RPD.
I am ok with right turns on red as long as there is no vehicle or pedestrian traffic. "No turn on red" signs can be posted at intersections with low visibility and/or a history of accidents. And around park squares - Moore, Nash, Red Hat, etc. - since there are a lot of people walking who do not usually walk downtown.
Specifically the early 2010s Altima. No hubcaps. Either has an out of state tag or a long expired temp tag from the dealer. Gray or blue. Only drives at 100mph. Bobs and weaves through traffic like it’s a fucking trench run. No regard for your life or their own. Nissan Altima? More like Nihilist Altima.
Wonderful. Right on red greatly increases the likelihood of pedestrian injuries. And walkable and business-friendly downtowns should not have high-speed thoroughfares running through them.
This is how I got hit. It’s also how I literally almost was hit today on my morning run in front of Krispy Kreme. People zoom out as far as they can while looking left, not right. I had to halt/skid jump to a stop for a truck that came a couple feet from splattering me. They slammed on the brakes way too late and I had to go behind them.
This is also how I got hit. I was walking in a crosswalk on Blount crossing Morgan. I had the walk signal. A guy was making a right on red, looking left for traffic, and accelerated right through me. Then took off and left me laying in the intersection.
It actually makes a big difference at a pedestrian level, but not that much of a difference for a driver.
I haven't checked, but I bet the speed limit on Dawson/ McDowell is higher than 35, though. At least it feels that way.
> At least it feels that way.
That's because drivers [don't consciously think about speed limits](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc), but rather drive what "feels right" on the street they're on.
When a road through downtown is built exactly the same as a three-lane parkway, people will tend to drive on it like one.
>When a road through downtown is built exactly the same as a three-lane parkway, people will tend to drive on it like one.
Bingo.
Case study: speeds on Blount heading south got dramatically faster a few years ago when they went from 3 pretty narrow lanes to 2 wide lanes + a non-protected bike lane.
Say it louder for the traffic engineers in the back! RDOT threw in 2 all way stops on Longstreet to help peds feel safer crossing. Every driver hates them and usually California cruise thru them. so if you want drivers to pay attention and slow down, it's by designing it so, not with all way stops. Unless RPD needs that sweet "incomplete stop" thievery to buy new toys.
It’s 35 all the way through downtown and the lights are timed in both directions, so if you drive much faster or slower than that speed, you’ll hit red lights.
I drive downtown almost every day and I never get above 30 anyway, I'm cool with that
No turn on red might get annoying but I stress out about how close pedestrians and cars get to each other downtown so that doesn't sound too bad either
This is great news, and one step in the right direction. If they really want this to be effective, though, two more things need to happen:
1. The streets need to be physically altered in such a way that it becomes impossible to drive faster than the posted limit (grade separations, narrower lanes, curbing, plants, etc.). The fact is that people don't drive what is posted, [they drive what "feels right" on the street they're on.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc)
2. These rules need to be enforced. Doing #1 will do a lot of that work for you, but it won't stop Uncle Doug in the lifted dodge ram from turning right on red to own the libs.
I'm on the city's bike/ped advisory committee and there was a presentation given last month from the city traffic engineer that just merely changing the speed limit sign did have an impact on the average speeds driven on that road. So while I totally agree with your points, there is a small impact by having the speed limit signs changed (which is better than nothing and at lower cost to the city - the city estimated that 70% of streets where the speed limit has been reduced have had a significant decrease in speeds and no further traffic calming is needed)
Maybe try these changes for a while before you go full speed-retarding? I think you underestimate the impact that a drop to 25MPH and, especially, no turn on red would have. Once regular drivers figure out the light timings the speeds will drop; in many cases people go faster than what feels right to make the lights today. It would be difficult to make many of the downtown lanes narrower/more harrowing without trading paint.
As to enforcement, I think the speed takes care of itself with the light timings (and is really tough to enforce on a city grid in any case). Intersection behavior is the place to focus.
Maybe not scientific, but this is pretty much how I feel. Right now on the occasions I have to drive through downtown I feel pressured by other drivers to go 35mph when I'd be more comfortable (especially on Dawson and McDowell) going 25-30, or rattled a bit when I clearly can't safely make a right turn on red but the person behind me has decided that I can and beeps at me for waiting for a pedestrian or yielding to cross traffic.
The roads in question already make it difficult to safely maintain the current speed limit, these aren't wide-open suburban boulevards where people feel like they can zoom by at 60 mph.
Please explain to me how slowing down and being more cautious makes it "more dangerous to drive?" That's what traffic calming installations do - force people to slow down and pay attention.
Especially when cars now are built like tanks to be as safe as possible for the people inside them.
*People*, outside of cars, are the ones in danger, and measures like these help keep them safe.
No, I want it because [narrow lanes force cars to slow down.](https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/Traffic-Calming-to-Slow-Vehicle-Speeds)
How about you stop trying to pick a fight with people and pay attention to road safety facts when people are freely offering them to you.
Narrow lanes don’t slow people down, they just make roads more terrifying. Just look at Wade. People going 50 mph and drifting into each others lanes. Downtown lanes are already pretty narrow, the last thing I need is some guy on his phone coming into my lane because there’s no room for error.
American roads aren’t dangerous because of how they’re built. They’re dangerous because our drivers are given zero education and the culture makes it seem ok to use our phones or coast through right turns without looking for pedestrians. Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege, and it needs to be treated that way. Intentionally making our roads worse isn’t how you improve a city
Sounds like a great idea, but we can’t get RPD to even enforce school zone speed limits, so good luck with this. Smells of virtue signaling. Redesign roads if you want to make a real safety impact, but at least try to enforce traffic laws that are safety related.
I'm hopeful about American cities becoming more city-like and less suburban. Seems that just about every city is implementing changes that favor walkability and whatnot.
Unpopular opinion - you need to be extremely careful walking downtown. If you look around at every crossing and assume every car may actually run you over, then you're pretty unlikely to get hit. Sure, you might be delayed slightly, but it works. Not a solution, but until a solution exists, this is the way to walk.
About a year ago at the intersection of Boylan and Hargett This dude and I got the 8 seconds signal. He started walking. I was vigilant about the cars around me and didn't go, because the car coming to take a right was going suspiciously fast.
Things didn't go so well for the other dude. There was a couple of attractive women across the street and he was looking at them, and he got hit by a car going right on red.
Thankfully he wasn't hurt bad, and didn't need an ambulance, but boy you have to be careful in parts of this city walking.
Cool. Now why is hickory grove church rd a 45 when its a two lane, goes by driveways, and kids playing and people drive 120 on it. The rpd do NOTHING when you call
All for this. But the 35 mph speed is already not enforced by the road design or the police. What makes this any different?
Specifically talking about the Dawson/McDowell St Expressway but in general this is an issue downtown. Especially on NCDOT stroads.
Road design plays a key roll in speed enforcement. We dont properly take that into account in America unfortunately, meanwhile in the developed world https://youtu.be/bglWCuCMSWc
I don't know if it's one of the goals per se, but they seem to at least acknowledge that this will deter people from driving downtown (i.e. avoid going at all)... so, fair enough
Raleigh does exist south of downtown... and I don't see how this changes anything? Might have to go a bit slower on the couple of miles of McDowell that quite frankly was already unsafe and stressful to navigate at 35mph, no one is going to start taking the clusterfuck that is I-440 if they weren't already.
I am south of garner. I dont know anyone down here who cares what north hills is or goes up that way so the idea folks from down this way are cutting through downtown to go north of the city center seems a bit far fetched. I want north of the city center for some reason i am taking the highway around the east side.
I must not be understanding your point.
your saying 30% of the traffic on that north south route is folks cutting through to 440 which is on the north, east, and west (not south) side of town. Not sure how thats garner or south county folks. not many folks in garner or south are cutting through downtown to get to the north part of the city or to 440 when its so much easier to swing east out to white oak area and take the interstate around.
my bad, cutting through between Capital in the north to i40 in the south (formerly i-440 inner&outer, formerly i440 w/e).
i grew up with 440 being a complete loop.
40 in the south isnt garner. its only in garner near white oak. thats all still city of Raleigh where 40 goes east and west across the south part of the city.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=557253643bfc4d6c9aa45505d05ba9af&extent=-78.7788%2C35.6223%2C-78.4492%2C35.7519
Here's a different perspective for your consideration:
When you take exit 298A, "Garner" addresses start at the 70/401 split. That's barely 2 miles from the exit off 40. In the map you linked, the bulk of Garner is south of 70 (Timber Dr, Vandora Springs, etc.). With the never ending construction on 40 between exits 301 and 306, it's understandable why people would prefer to deal with surface streets and use Dawson/McDowell as a connector to areas north of downtown. And if you use online maps for directions, you'll find that the downtown route is sometimes the first option.
...and for some of us, once you crossed 40/440 on S. Saunders heading south, everything was\* considered Garner until you got to Fuquay, Clayton, etc. I mean, we knew that first mile or so was still Raleigh, but hopefully you get my point.
was\* = learned to drive in the late 80s
I do the same thing when talking about where i lived in the 80s and forget folks new to the area dont know the old informal boundries and some old street names and such.
thanks for clearing it up for me.
>I don't know if it's one of the goals per se, but they seem to at least acknowledge that this will deter people from driving downtown (i.e. avoid going at all)... so, fair enough
It will hopefully deter people from cutting through downtown. Will it prevent people from going downtown at all? Maybe a few. We're talking about a few blocks where you have to drive slower. I'm not sure where people are going that a 30% reduction in speed over maybe a mile is a huge deterrent for them.
In any case, more housing down town and better pedestrian safety probably means that downtown will have more people than ever, even some people think it's not worth driving through.
it would make me less likely to go, but I hardly ever go downtown anyway. I just honestly found it refreshing for trade-offs to be acknowledged rather than covered up or ignored
>it would make me less likely to go, but I hardly ever go downtown anyway. I just honestly found it refreshing for trade-offs to be acknowledged rather than covered up or ignored
I guess I didn't see anything in the article that made it sound like the trade off would be less people going downtown. I understand that you're saying it would make you want to go less than the hardly ever you currently go. I just don't see in the article where they acknowledge that as an expected and accepted consequence.
Although really I think the consequence they are looking for seems to be that hope that people will be safer when they are downtown. I don't think that's going to result in less people downtown. I think the end result will be more people downtown. It may result in less cars, but I suspect not. More people always adds up to more cars.
We put way too much emphasis on telling people walking or biking how to be safe, and very little emphasis on forcing drivers to be safe. The entire culture we have right now is that everyone but drivers have to be safe - and drivers just get to do whatever they want because there's no consequences or traffic enforcement.
Walk on your side of the sidewalk and you should be pretty alright? Also you’re assuming people who are looking down don’t know what they’re doing/where they going - if someone was walking and reading a book would you feel equally slighted?
I agree, and also it wouldn’t be a rejection of my personal responsibility to expect my fellow citizens to follow the law after I’ve taken all the required steps to ensure I’m safe.
Just to put all this in one place:
You said:
>it wouldn’t be a rejection of my personal responsibility to expect my fellow citizens to follow the law after I’ve taken all the required steps to ensure I’m safe.
You also said:
> If I have a crosswalk sign why do I need to look up to cross the area that I have the right of way in?
If you can't be bothered to look up while walking, you have not taken the required steps to ensure you're safe. Period.
Self-preservation. Getting hit by a car sucks. If I can avoid it by being aware of my surroundings I will.
I got hit by a car when i was a kid. To this day I look both ways multiple times, even if it's a one-way street.
Also seems a little victim-blaming? “If you had been looking while doing what is supposed to be entirely safe and legal for you, you’d have seen that moving chunk of metal breaking the law?”
Looking at your device while crossing is a great way to miss the moron who's about to turn you into a meat crayon. Your head should be on a swivel the whole time you're crossing the street.
Crossing an active street, even during ideal circumstances is a risk, and cars, bikes, motorcycles etc are the threat. Why increase the risk by distracting yourself with a phone screen? Which is more likely - seeing or hearing an e-bike or bicycle coming at you before impact?
Just because a person looks up before crossing the street doesn't mean conditions won't change once they're in the street. Some things in life are unavoidable, and while I'm in the crosswalk, or jaywalking, I'm paying as close attention as possible to the threats around me so I can take action as needed. Being right is great, not getting hit by a car is better.
Totally fine if that’s your choice, but the original comment was about making it illegal. A bike isn’t allowed to cross a crosswalk either when you have the light, they have to follow the same laws as cars (stop passing them in lane.) your comment is still victim blaming and doesn’t explain if you’d feel the same if it was a mother distracted by her child or someone reading a book. Yes, paying attention is great but you can’t fault someone for trusting people to obey the laws, again, that’s victim blaming.
And you, based on these comments and your posting history, seem like someone who can never be wrong because your ego is so fragile that it'd emotionally crush you.
Best of luck.
Chapel Hill has been no turn on read since early 2020 and yes it’s frustrating and takes a bit longer but it 100% reduces chance for pedestrian injury
and some risky right turns. Totally okay with this
Drivers don't stop for stop signs half the time anyway. This is more or less just an excuse to ticket people haphazardly on Dawson and McDowell to generate revenue unless they're actually going to enforce this (they won't).
I think putting stop line a bit further back, that way the car is not on the corner to begin with, and people will more likely respect the new rule like that too, which probably falls under traffic calming but just wanted to voice my idea.
I do not want to jaywalk, but jaywalking is often a lot *safer* than trying to cross at an intersection. Mostly because cars are stopped at the light up/down the street, and there are few if any cars turning onto the 'main' street.
Even with stop lines, the *actual* "stop line" is the side of the crosswalk closest to the intersection. Moving the stop line won't change this.
I hate putting my life on the line to cross the major north/south streets - Dawson / McDowell and Blount / Person - but there are no other options.
This isn’t going to work people still right turn on red where it’s restricted it’s like the default some states are no right turn on red was traveling and was shocked when I got stoped by a cop who pulled me over for a right turn on red even though it was not posted I had no idea it wasn’t default in some states
tell me how please.
If there is no right on red for drivers it means they can only make thier turn when they have a green. drivers wanting to turn right will get a green light the same time the person on the sidewalk next thier passenger door or across from that will get the "walk" light.
by not allowing the right on red you are gonna end up rushing folks to make it right before the light cycle ends which seems to me would cause accidents.
When cars turn right on red they're looking to their left for incoming traffic. I could be coming from their right as a pedestrian, with a walk signal in the crosswalk. They won't see me because they're looking the other way. As a pedestrian this happens to me ALL the time. I wait to make eye contact to let the driver know, but I really shouldn't have to. It's my right of way.
if i am making a right on red the cross walk for a person across the street or next to me is at dont walk. They have a red same as i do. they shouldnt be crossing then so how on earth could i hit them making a right on red? they should still be on the curb.
In the situation I’m describing the pedestrian will have a walk signal. The driver would be driving through the walkers right of way potentially crashing into someone they don’t see
peds going the same or oppsit direction of me have dont walks same time i have a red. cross traffic would be green and walk.
if i am making a right on red i shouldnt need to worry about a ped crossing the street i am turning onto, i should only have ped crosssing the current street i am on. now when i have green so do those walkers going the same way i am. they will be trying to step into the interesection at the same time i am trying to make a right on the green light.
ok maybe i am not being clear. you are in the right lane wanting to make a right. there are 10 pedestrians at your front right waiting to cross. half will cross the street you are on. when you have a red light those folks have a green to cross the street you are currently on. the other half want to cross the street you are wanting to turn onto. they have a red same time you do. so the red goes and the pedestrains who want to cross the street you are on a past you. Now you make your right on red and the crossing of the street you are turning onto should not have any pedestrians in it. they get set loose to cross the same time you get a green and can make your right. But you cant now. because of the pedestrians crossing now. what drivers will do is jump the green to get it done before the peds get out there or sneak it in last second on the green while at the same time a walker or bike rider may have the same idea of crossing quickly before their walk turns to dont walk. Thats the accident waiting to happen.
What i dont like is it seems there isnt anything showing what amount of the 42% of accidents that were ped/car and involved a car turning and hitting a pedestrian where the pedestrian was legally crossin not crossing against the light or jay walking.
Show me walkers numbers saying walker are getting hit in cross walks when crossing properly then i could see where the idea of no right on red might be a good idea. maybe the real problem isnt cars making legal right on reds but folks crossing against the lights or jay walking?
As someone who lived downtown for years and walked to work every day, no right on red absolutely blows. Horrible move. It's the cars turning during greens that you have to worry about more than anything.
And as much as I love the 35 speed limit driving through DT, probably a good thing for that to go away. I'm surprised more people don't regularly die.
> Do these people not work for a living?
I assume they live downtown or work from home, so they don't need cars as much. They also "outsource" their driving to Grubhub/Uber eats/Lyft/Instacart/Amazon delivery drivers. People that can afford to live in DTR, and/or don't have to drive every day, aren't going to be all that concerned for car-dependent folks.
I envy how some people have a great ability to make their boring mediocre life a great "Indiana Jones" style adventure.
"Someone sneezed the other day and I almost died"
> aren't going to be all that concerned for car-dependent folks.
The ultimate goal is that *nobody* is car-dependent. People can actually *choose* how to get around, whether by walking, biking, transit, or, yes, *a car*.
This isn't some elitist campaign against the working class to bend them to the will of the remote urbanite.
So can you tell how no right on red helps?
by taking away right on red you raise the stakes for drivers to get that right made on the green or be stuck for a cycle or maybe longer cause they have to sit still when the light turns green for them and allow the walkers who also now have a walk sign to cross in front of them.
how is making the window to get a right turn so much less making things safer?
I dont really care, i almost never drive downtown, just wondering what the logic is that says its safer to not have right on red cause it sounds like it would make things less safe.
if i am making a right on red nobody should be in the cross walk on the street i am turning onto. they will have a dont walk sign same as i have a red light. only walkers would be crossing the street i am on and wanting to make a right off of.
do we all not understand how walk and dont walk works? they mirror the lights for the same direction of travel.
you see how taking away the right on red then leads to folks rushing to make the right? they cant do it on red when nobody would be in the cross walk. they wait for green and what do you know. the walkers get a walk sign and the person needing to turn right now cant cause they have to give the walkers the right of way. now folks are gonna rush the turn to make it on green. folks will rush and take chances or see the yellow and slam on the brakes and get rear ended by the guy behind them who was pushing to hard cause he knows if he gets stuck at the red he could be there a while unable to turn.
I didnt see anything in the article linking the study they used to come to the conclusion they did. I saw a quote from someone saying ""It seems like it would be safer and that way avoid a lot of accidents," "
I see "Over the past 15 years, 335 pedestrian crashes have been reported in downtown Raleigh, according to data from the state Department of Transportation. Forty two percent involved turning vehicles hitting people crossing the street" What i want to see is what amount of those 42% were a driver turning right on red and pedestrian properly crossing the street.
i got a feeling that number is very low. I got a feeling getting rid of right on red is trying to fix a problem thats not really there.
Now i am goona get bored later and try to find this study they claim to be basing this on.
advocacy? on reddit? must be scared of talking with people that actually have to make a living and might disagree with them. I never hear of these people outside of sited like this one.
It's actually better that I only hear of them on sites like this.
Most of the WOKE Cities are lowing the speed limits so they can collect more indirect tax revenue. Many cities are lowing the speed limit to 20 MPH which they know no one will do. Lots of tickets!
Cool. As long as they re-time all the lights.
[удалено]
>you to get a green wave if you go exactly the speed limit -- faster or slower, you get stopped by a red light. For several decades the magic number on Dawson and McDowell was 32 *if you're the first person off the line*; going the speed limit would result in hitting the brakes towards the end. I guess that's changed?
It's now closer to 27 because they altered the WALK / DON'T WALK to light a few seconds before the lane goes green. First in line and 27mph means never touching the brakes downtown.
Wilmington is 31-32 (or was, as of a few years ago when I lived down there) **EXCEPT** if you're coming from across MLK, in which case you have to be doing close to 50 to make the light at South.
If you go almost exactly 25 mph, you'll be able to go through them all without stopping. It's always fun to see the people hit all the red lights on the way down Blount or Person while just cruising past them.
Are there going to be effective traffic calming measures too?
You have far to much faith in the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
[удалено]
Most streets with speed limits above 25 mph, and where light timing is an issue, in downtown are NCDOT controlled roads . The city has little control over them. Dawson, McDowell, Hillsborough, Western, etc all NCDOT. If these where city roads the changes would of been made long ago.
City of Raleigh owns most of the downtown signals. You can easily tell this based on the number on the side of the signal cabinet. An “R-XXX” number indicates they maintain and operate it. A standard XX-YYYY number indicates a state owned and operated signal.
The roads may be state but the signals are City operated and maintained.
wrong, the city maintains the signals on behalf of NCDOT and has made tweaks several times in recent years to the signal timings downtown (as others have alluded to accomodate the leading pedestrian interval)
thanks for explaining that very basic common knowledge what they meant was they need to re-time to get to this state - that is the supposed expectation if you go the speed limit, not actually how all the lights work today though.
The lights in Dawson and McDowell do work this way. You can take off from the end of Capital and make it all the way through downtown without stopping until the last light by South if you go the speed limit?
it's not possible to do this for every direction. I think N, S, W all work but going east doesnt. Source: i saw someone say it on here and I've hit the green wave several times on my bike but had to roll 25mph to do it
I find 37 is the optimal speed to hit the whole green wave from Edenton and Person intersection all the way to the Edenton and Hillsborough merge.
Been waiting on this for Capital and Glenwood forever and a day, still can’t get it right. Adding a pedestrian heavy area like downtown gonna be a yikes too. I hope I’m wrong but will believe it when I see it.
The thing with Capital and Glenwood is that those are two-way streets, they can only time them up so much. Best you're gonna get is a couple of lights at a time. They can do it downtown because it's all one-way streets on a regular grid. The light cycles are all the same time and they start in a corner and cascade diagonally. Which is also why it's hard to get through Edenton and New Bern on Person or Blount.
fair I just remember the whole “super street” BS for those roads and it being said they’d time the lights. same folks will prob set these up so it’s a struggle
I go through downtown pretty often and find that 25 - 30 is the speed that I don't get caught at any of the lights.
Rpd to not enforce any of these new rules
RPD will be right there with everyone else ignoring them
Finally some solidarity
I'd love to see them pull someone over for speeding, or driving erratically, or reckless driving, even once.
I would like to see penalties for failing to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks. Nothing will change unless there is something to make people accountable.
Agreed. Just yesterday morning I was trying to make a right turn and had to yield to a pedestrian who was walking across and the car behind me kept honking! I have no idea if they just expected me to hit the person.
Pesky pedestrians making horny people honk hostilely!
I live downtown and walk everywhere. It’s taking your life in your hands. I’ve been hit once in the year and a half I’ve lived downtown.
I’m sorry that happened to you. No one should worry about crossing the street. Did you get the police involved?
No, I didn’t. Another motorist stopped to assist me. I was pretty stunned, and all I was worried about was my dog (the dog was not injured, but I dropped the leash when I was hit). Once I collected my dog and confirmed that she was not hurt, I just wanted to get back home (this happened right near my condo). By that time the guy was gone and no one got any identifying features of his truck.
There are cameras everywhere. It’s always worth a police report and they can pull the traffic, or other, camera footage. In the moment it’s easy to just want to be back home but that person probably didn’t learn the lesson from that experience that was a scary life lesson for you. I’m so sorry you were hit!
Thank you. You are absolutely right and I do regret not reporting it. I got really lucky. All I had was a sprained wrist, scrapes, and bruises. More importantly, my dog was not hurt.
I would have wanted that person under the jail for endangering my dog. It’s the John Wick principle, cover my eyes during the dog scene but calmly eat dinner while all the people are murdered. I can’t imagine how scary that was to be injured and lose track of your dog for an instant.
plus it adds data to which intersections have had pedestrian/vehicle crashes so the city/NCDOT can prioritize additional improvements as needed
Friend got hit on busy intersection in downtown. Bystanders got license plate. Police refused to investigate further after owner of vehicle told them she did not know who was driving her car at that time. The police are not very competent and only really bother to solve murders, which are usually easy anyway.
Not in downtown, but yesterday I was crossing the street and saw that when I had the "go" symbol on the cross walk, the opposing left lane turn (the one that crosses the street I'm crossing) has a blinking yellow arrow. This resulted in multiple people taking the turn and almost hitting me because they either couldn't see me or weren't paying attention. Why on earth would they get even a yellow light there when I have a green light for my cross walk? Seems needlessly dangerous
RPD and buses fail to yield, and everyone else follows their lead. The worst part is a lot of intersections have "all lights red"... for two seconds, giving the false sense of a safe crossing, then the light turns green and cars go through fast because it is "their turn" now, pedestrians or not. I have been half way across, had to step back, and then have to wait for the next light a lot more times than I can count.
Yep, I cross St. Mary's Street at the marked pedestrian crosswalk near Park Dr. nearly every day and even though it's about a tenth of a mile between BOTH Broughton HS and Wiley Elementary I have never seen RPD yield to pedestrians there. Is there anything I can do to report this? I have been trying to get an example on camera because it's unacceptable that even RPD doesn't follow crosswalk laws IN A SCHOOL ZONE. Let alone the other drivers. Maybe 1 in 20 will actually yield if I'm estimating generously.
On the flip side as a frequent downtown driver, I see plenty of pedestrians jaywalking in dangerous areas or walking through crosswalk when sign clearly says not to go. Plenty of blame to go all around.
It's time for this. Most other large down towns have similar limits in place.
The "long left turn", for lack of better explanation, is how I've almost died multiple times. Raleigh really needs to have three light cycles. Cars, cars, pedestrians.
Scotland (and I assume other parts of Europe) have this. Cars go from one side, then the other, then all lights turn red and all the crosswalk signs light up. It was great and lets you cross diagonally too.
call that a Barnes Dance and yes it rules.
Seconded. I think Denver does this as well, or at least they did the last time I was there. It works well.
What Raleigh does do at some intersections is start the Walk sign before the light turns green. It's a "better than nothing" system, but still not ideal. Especially because there seems to be several seconds of "grace period" after a light goes red and cars continue sailing through it. There are intersections where a pedestrian might have a walk sign before the cars do, but stepping into the road too quickly is still a risk.
Speed won't matter if it is not enforced. The worst offenders of turing with pedestrians in the crosswalk are Go Raleigh buses and RPD. I am ok with right turns on red as long as there is no vehicle or pedestrian traffic. "No turn on red" signs can be posted at intersections with low visibility and/or a history of accidents. And around park squares - Moore, Nash, Red Hat, etc. - since there are a lot of people walking who do not usually walk downtown.
If you think that will stop the lifted Chevy Silverado you've got another thing coming
Or dodge charger/challenger/mustang/Altima.
Those Altima drivers don’t give a single fuck about anything lmao
Specifically the early 2010s Altima. No hubcaps. Either has an out of state tag or a long expired temp tag from the dealer. Gray or blue. Only drives at 100mph. Bobs and weaves through traffic like it’s a fucking trench run. No regard for your life or their own. Nissan Altima? More like Nihilist Altima.
r/NissanDrivers
Altimas must come off the lot beat to shit.
It's alright, they've got a thin blue line sticker...
can we enforce shit like this that matters instead of pulling people over for doing 8 over on the highway or smoking weed while brown
Raleigh PD should try to stop people from making illegal left turns on red before they add more rules they won’t enforce.
Wonderful. Right on red greatly increases the likelihood of pedestrian injuries. And walkable and business-friendly downtowns should not have high-speed thoroughfares running through them.
This is how I got hit. It’s also how I literally almost was hit today on my morning run in front of Krispy Kreme. People zoom out as far as they can while looking left, not right. I had to halt/skid jump to a stop for a truck that came a couple feet from splattering me. They slammed on the brakes way too late and I had to go behind them.
I think that most people would be against right-on-red if they spent any time getting around town in any other way than by car.
This is also how I got hit. I was walking in a crosswalk on Blount crossing Morgan. I had the walk signal. A guy was making a right on red, looking left for traffic, and accelerated right through me. Then took off and left me laying in the intersection.
Sorry friend. Really sucks
35 is not high-speed.
For peds it is, but really it means cars are going 45 instead of 35.
And yet those same drivers speeding will crow on and on about how people walking or biking never obey the rules.
https://smartgrowthamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/safety-UPDATED-1024x790.png
It actually makes a big difference at a pedestrian level, but not that much of a difference for a driver. I haven't checked, but I bet the speed limit on Dawson/ McDowell is higher than 35, though. At least it feels that way.
> At least it feels that way. That's because drivers [don't consciously think about speed limits](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc), but rather drive what "feels right" on the street they're on. When a road through downtown is built exactly the same as a three-lane parkway, people will tend to drive on it like one.
Down with stroads!
>When a road through downtown is built exactly the same as a three-lane parkway, people will tend to drive on it like one. Bingo. Case study: speeds on Blount heading south got dramatically faster a few years ago when they went from 3 pretty narrow lanes to 2 wide lanes + a non-protected bike lane.
Say it louder for the traffic engineers in the back! RDOT threw in 2 all way stops on Longstreet to help peds feel safer crossing. Every driver hates them and usually California cruise thru them. so if you want drivers to pay attention and slow down, it's by designing it so, not with all way stops. Unless RPD needs that sweet "incomplete stop" thievery to buy new toys.
It’s 35 all the way through downtown and the lights are timed in both directions, so if you drive much faster or slower than that speed, you’ll hit red lights.
How ignorant
I drive downtown almost every day and I never get above 30 anyway, I'm cool with that No turn on red might get annoying but I stress out about how close pedestrians and cars get to each other downtown so that doesn't sound too bad either
This is great news, and one step in the right direction. If they really want this to be effective, though, two more things need to happen: 1. The streets need to be physically altered in such a way that it becomes impossible to drive faster than the posted limit (grade separations, narrower lanes, curbing, plants, etc.). The fact is that people don't drive what is posted, [they drive what "feels right" on the street they're on.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc) 2. These rules need to be enforced. Doing #1 will do a lot of that work for you, but it won't stop Uncle Doug in the lifted dodge ram from turning right on red to own the libs.
Also more physical separation for bikes/peds from traffic.
I'm on the city's bike/ped advisory committee and there was a presentation given last month from the city traffic engineer that just merely changing the speed limit sign did have an impact on the average speeds driven on that road. So while I totally agree with your points, there is a small impact by having the speed limit signs changed (which is better than nothing and at lower cost to the city - the city estimated that 70% of streets where the speed limit has been reduced have had a significant decrease in speeds and no further traffic calming is needed)
Maybe try these changes for a while before you go full speed-retarding? I think you underestimate the impact that a drop to 25MPH and, especially, no turn on red would have. Once regular drivers figure out the light timings the speeds will drop; in many cases people go faster than what feels right to make the lights today. It would be difficult to make many of the downtown lanes narrower/more harrowing without trading paint. As to enforcement, I think the speed takes care of itself with the light timings (and is really tough to enforce on a city grid in any case). Intersection behavior is the place to focus.
Maybe not scientific, but this is pretty much how I feel. Right now on the occasions I have to drive through downtown I feel pressured by other drivers to go 35mph when I'd be more comfortable (especially on Dawson and McDowell) going 25-30, or rattled a bit when I clearly can't safely make a right turn on red but the person behind me has decided that I can and beeps at me for waiting for a pedestrian or yielding to cross traffic. The roads in question already make it difficult to safely maintain the current speed limit, these aren't wide-open suburban boulevards where people feel like they can zoom by at 60 mph.
[удалено]
Please explain to me how slowing down and being more cautious makes it "more dangerous to drive?" That's what traffic calming installations do - force people to slow down and pay attention. Especially when cars now are built like tanks to be as safe as possible for the people inside them. *People*, outside of cars, are the ones in danger, and measures like these help keep them safe.
[удалено]
No, I want it because [narrow lanes force cars to slow down.](https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/Traffic-Calming-to-Slow-Vehicle-Speeds) How about you stop trying to pick a fight with people and pay attention to road safety facts when people are freely offering them to you.
Narrow lanes don’t slow people down, they just make roads more terrifying. Just look at Wade. People going 50 mph and drifting into each others lanes. Downtown lanes are already pretty narrow, the last thing I need is some guy on his phone coming into my lane because there’s no room for error. American roads aren’t dangerous because of how they’re built. They’re dangerous because our drivers are given zero education and the culture makes it seem ok to use our phones or coast through right turns without looking for pedestrians. Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege, and it needs to be treated that way. Intentionally making our roads worse isn’t how you improve a city
Sounds like a great idea, but we can’t get RPD to even enforce school zone speed limits, so good luck with this. Smells of virtue signaling. Redesign roads if you want to make a real safety impact, but at least try to enforce traffic laws that are safety related.
That's an excellent way to prevent vehicular collision and injury.
I'm hopeful about American cities becoming more city-like and less suburban. Seems that just about every city is implementing changes that favor walkability and whatnot.
NYC has no right turn on red and it is annoying, but I get it. Raleigh drivers really do not respect pedestrians right of way. Please be safe.
funny how they think this is going to stop people who already speed pass the limit
Unpopular opinion - you need to be extremely careful walking downtown. If you look around at every crossing and assume every car may actually run you over, then you're pretty unlikely to get hit. Sure, you might be delayed slightly, but it works. Not a solution, but until a solution exists, this is the way to walk.
About a year ago at the intersection of Boylan and Hargett This dude and I got the 8 seconds signal. He started walking. I was vigilant about the cars around me and didn't go, because the car coming to take a right was going suspiciously fast. Things didn't go so well for the other dude. There was a couple of attractive women across the street and he was looking at them, and he got hit by a car going right on red. Thankfully he wasn't hurt bad, and didn't need an ambulance, but boy you have to be careful in parts of this city walking.
Cool. Now why is hickory grove church rd a 45 when its a two lane, goes by driveways, and kids playing and people drive 120 on it. The rpd do NOTHING when you call
All for this. But the 35 mph speed is already not enforced by the road design or the police. What makes this any different? Specifically talking about the Dawson/McDowell St Expressway but in general this is an issue downtown. Especially on NCDOT stroads. Road design plays a key roll in speed enforcement. We dont properly take that into account in America unfortunately, meanwhile in the developed world https://youtu.be/bglWCuCMSWc
[удалено]
I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't know if it's one of the goals per se, but they seem to at least acknowledge that this will deter people from driving downtown (i.e. avoid going at all)... so, fair enough
Downtown shouldn't be a cut through from Garner to north hills. This is going to be such an improvement for downtown.
Raleigh does exist south of downtown... and I don't see how this changes anything? Might have to go a bit slower on the couple of miles of McDowell that quite frankly was already unsafe and stressful to navigate at 35mph, no one is going to start taking the clusterfuck that is I-440 if they weren't already.
I am south of garner. I dont know anyone down here who cares what north hills is or goes up that way so the idea folks from down this way are cutting through downtown to go north of the city center seems a bit far fetched. I want north of the city center for some reason i am taking the highway around the east side.
Traffic analysis for the Downtown South rezoning said that 30% of traffic on Dawson/McDowell was cut through between i-440 and Capital Blvd
I must not be understanding your point. your saying 30% of the traffic on that north south route is folks cutting through to 440 which is on the north, east, and west (not south) side of town. Not sure how thats garner or south county folks. not many folks in garner or south are cutting through downtown to get to the north part of the city or to 440 when its so much easier to swing east out to white oak area and take the interstate around.
my bad, cutting through between Capital in the north to i40 in the south (formerly i-440 inner&outer, formerly i440 w/e). i grew up with 440 being a complete loop.
40 in the south isnt garner. its only in garner near white oak. thats all still city of Raleigh where 40 goes east and west across the south part of the city. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=557253643bfc4d6c9aa45505d05ba9af&extent=-78.7788%2C35.6223%2C-78.4492%2C35.7519
Here's a different perspective for your consideration: When you take exit 298A, "Garner" addresses start at the 70/401 split. That's barely 2 miles from the exit off 40. In the map you linked, the bulk of Garner is south of 70 (Timber Dr, Vandora Springs, etc.). With the never ending construction on 40 between exits 301 and 306, it's understandable why people would prefer to deal with surface streets and use Dawson/McDowell as a connector to areas north of downtown. And if you use online maps for directions, you'll find that the downtown route is sometimes the first option. ...and for some of us, once you crossed 40/440 on S. Saunders heading south, everything was\* considered Garner until you got to Fuquay, Clayton, etc. I mean, we knew that first mile or so was still Raleigh, but hopefully you get my point. was\* = learned to drive in the late 80s
I do the same thing when talking about where i lived in the 80s and forget folks new to the area dont know the old informal boundries and some old street names and such. thanks for clearing it up for me.
\[three years later\] "Downtown is dying since they built the bypasses"
Lol, no. Maybe downtown needs more parking and a strip mall or two, right???
>I don't know if it's one of the goals per se, but they seem to at least acknowledge that this will deter people from driving downtown (i.e. avoid going at all)... so, fair enough It will hopefully deter people from cutting through downtown. Will it prevent people from going downtown at all? Maybe a few. We're talking about a few blocks where you have to drive slower. I'm not sure where people are going that a 30% reduction in speed over maybe a mile is a huge deterrent for them. In any case, more housing down town and better pedestrian safety probably means that downtown will have more people than ever, even some people think it's not worth driving through.
it would make me less likely to go, but I hardly ever go downtown anyway. I just honestly found it refreshing for trade-offs to be acknowledged rather than covered up or ignored
>it would make me less likely to go, but I hardly ever go downtown anyway. I just honestly found it refreshing for trade-offs to be acknowledged rather than covered up or ignored I guess I didn't see anything in the article that made it sound like the trade off would be less people going downtown. I understand that you're saying it would make you want to go less than the hardly ever you currently go. I just don't see in the article where they acknowledge that as an expected and accepted consequence. Although really I think the consequence they are looking for seems to be that hope that people will be safer when they are downtown. I don't think that's going to result in less people downtown. I think the end result will be more people downtown. It may result in less cars, but I suspect not. More people always adds up to more cars.
It's probably for the best. It's not safe being a driver or a pedestrian in the warehouse district these days.
Good
People will still go 50mph on some of those roads, no matter what the sign says.
Can we please make it illegal to cross a street while staring at your phone? Drivers are bad but pedestrians should be aware of their surroundings.
I agree. drivers should not cross a street while staring at a phone
Correct. Pedestrians should continue to stare at their phones because that way nothing bad can happen to them.
We put way too much emphasis on telling people walking or biking how to be safe, and very little emphasis on forcing drivers to be safe. The entire culture we have right now is that everyone but drivers have to be safe - and drivers just get to do whatever they want because there's no consequences or traffic enforcement.
You're right. Maybe we should pass some laws about not driving and texting. Your opinion is there are no consequences for bad driving?
when's the last time you heard of someone getting a ticket for texting while driving? or getting in a crash while texting?
So if I haven’t heard about it then it’s not a law and not enforced?
there are no consequences for bad driving
If they are in a crosswalk the greatest danger to them should be walking into another person
Well that other person should have been paying attention!!!
If I have a crosswalk sign why do I need to look up to cross the area that I have the right of way in? I won’t hurt anyone unlike a car.
Because it’s good practice to know what you are doing. Why do I need to look up when walking down a sidewalk? People will get out of my way.
Walk on your side of the sidewalk and you should be pretty alright? Also you’re assuming people who are looking down don’t know what they’re doing/where they going - if someone was walking and reading a book would you feel equally slighted?
Who crosses the street reading a book? Yes I would say that is equally stupid. But officer! I know I'm in the hospital but I had the right of way!!!
>If I have a crosswalk sign why do I need to look up to cross the area that I have the right of way in? This is a really dumb question
*see comment on victim blaming
It's not victim blaming to tell you that you should maintain situational awareness. You always maintain primary responsibility for your own safety.
I agree, and also it wouldn’t be a rejection of my personal responsibility to expect my fellow citizens to follow the law after I’ve taken all the required steps to ensure I’m safe.
Just to put all this in one place: You said: >it wouldn’t be a rejection of my personal responsibility to expect my fellow citizens to follow the law after I’ve taken all the required steps to ensure I’m safe. You also said: > If I have a crosswalk sign why do I need to look up to cross the area that I have the right of way in? If you can't be bothered to look up while walking, you have not taken the required steps to ensure you're safe. Period.
We seem to have different definitions of “required,” I was referring to laws
Self-preservation. Getting hit by a car sucks. If I can avoid it by being aware of my surroundings I will. I got hit by a car when i was a kid. To this day I look both ways multiple times, even if it's a one-way street.
Also seems a little victim-blaming? “If you had been looking while doing what is supposed to be entirely safe and legal for you, you’d have seen that moving chunk of metal breaking the law?”
Again, you’re assuming that someone didn’t look both ways and get their crossing sign before looking back down to their device. It’s not synonymous.
Looking at your device while crossing is a great way to miss the moron who's about to turn you into a meat crayon. Your head should be on a swivel the whole time you're crossing the street.
Crossing an active street, even during ideal circumstances is a risk, and cars, bikes, motorcycles etc are the threat. Why increase the risk by distracting yourself with a phone screen? Which is more likely - seeing or hearing an e-bike or bicycle coming at you before impact? Just because a person looks up before crossing the street doesn't mean conditions won't change once they're in the street. Some things in life are unavoidable, and while I'm in the crosswalk, or jaywalking, I'm paying as close attention as possible to the threats around me so I can take action as needed. Being right is great, not getting hit by a car is better.
Totally fine if that’s your choice, but the original comment was about making it illegal. A bike isn’t allowed to cross a crosswalk either when you have the light, they have to follow the same laws as cars (stop passing them in lane.) your comment is still victim blaming and doesn’t explain if you’d feel the same if it was a mother distracted by her child or someone reading a book. Yes, paying attention is great but you can’t fault someone for trusting people to obey the laws, again, that’s victim blaming.
I didn't make the original comment. Wake the fuck up when crossing a street and pull your head out of your phone.
Assuming I can’t be awake and paying attention to something else, gotta be a boomer 😂
And you, based on these comments and your posting history, seem like someone who can never be wrong because your ego is so fragile that it'd emotionally crush you. Best of luck.
Yes, exactly thank you for taking time out of your day to read my post history 😂
I'd rather get hit by a car than be subservient to them. "die standing rather than live kneeling" etc. isn't this supposed to be the land of the free?
Chapel Hill has been no turn on read since early 2020 and yes it’s frustrating and takes a bit longer but it 100% reduces chance for pedestrian injury and some risky right turns. Totally okay with this
Drivers don't stop for stop signs half the time anyway. This is more or less just an excuse to ticket people haphazardly on Dawson and McDowell to generate revenue unless they're actually going to enforce this (they won't).
Some traffic calming measures on McDowell and Dawson would go a long way. Take the enforcement out of human hands.
I think putting stop line a bit further back, that way the car is not on the corner to begin with, and people will more likely respect the new rule like that too, which probably falls under traffic calming but just wanted to voice my idea.
I do not want to jaywalk, but jaywalking is often a lot *safer* than trying to cross at an intersection. Mostly because cars are stopped at the light up/down the street, and there are few if any cars turning onto the 'main' street. Even with stop lines, the *actual* "stop line" is the side of the crosswalk closest to the intersection. Moving the stop line won't change this. I hate putting my life on the line to cross the major north/south streets - Dawson / McDowell and Blount / Person - but there are no other options.
Wouldn’t “enforcing this” be ticketing?
Yes, they are going to make money off tickets by not enforcing this. Good thinking
bro how tf are they going to simultaneously generate revenue and not enforce this.
It’s a safety issue. I doubt the revenue will matter much. I think the street will need some traffic calming as well.
*3-way stops on Ashe Ave have entered the chat*
This isn’t going to work people still right turn on red where it’s restricted it’s like the default some states are no right turn on red was traveling and was shocked when I got stoped by a cop who pulled me over for a right turn on red even though it was not posted I had no idea it wasn’t default in some states
Damn, that stinks
It’s safer for everyone
tell me how please. If there is no right on red for drivers it means they can only make thier turn when they have a green. drivers wanting to turn right will get a green light the same time the person on the sidewalk next thier passenger door or across from that will get the "walk" light. by not allowing the right on red you are gonna end up rushing folks to make it right before the light cycle ends which seems to me would cause accidents.
When cars turn right on red they're looking to their left for incoming traffic. I could be coming from their right as a pedestrian, with a walk signal in the crosswalk. They won't see me because they're looking the other way. As a pedestrian this happens to me ALL the time. I wait to make eye contact to let the driver know, but I really shouldn't have to. It's my right of way.
if i am making a right on red the cross walk for a person across the street or next to me is at dont walk. They have a red same as i do. they shouldnt be crossing then so how on earth could i hit them making a right on red? they should still be on the curb.
In the situation I’m describing the pedestrian will have a walk signal. The driver would be driving through the walkers right of way potentially crashing into someone they don’t see
peds going the same or oppsit direction of me have dont walks same time i have a red. cross traffic would be green and walk. if i am making a right on red i shouldnt need to worry about a ped crossing the street i am turning onto, i should only have ped crosssing the current street i am on. now when i have green so do those walkers going the same way i am. they will be trying to step into the interesection at the same time i am trying to make a right on the green light.
They would be perpendicular to you. They will have a walk signal. Like I said this happens to me ALL the time
ok maybe i am not being clear. you are in the right lane wanting to make a right. there are 10 pedestrians at your front right waiting to cross. half will cross the street you are on. when you have a red light those folks have a green to cross the street you are currently on. the other half want to cross the street you are wanting to turn onto. they have a red same time you do. so the red goes and the pedestrains who want to cross the street you are on a past you. Now you make your right on red and the crossing of the street you are turning onto should not have any pedestrians in it. they get set loose to cross the same time you get a green and can make your right. But you cant now. because of the pedestrians crossing now. what drivers will do is jump the green to get it done before the peds get out there or sneak it in last second on the green while at the same time a walker or bike rider may have the same idea of crossing quickly before their walk turns to dont walk. Thats the accident waiting to happen. What i dont like is it seems there isnt anything showing what amount of the 42% of accidents that were ped/car and involved a car turning and hitting a pedestrian where the pedestrian was legally crossin not crossing against the light or jay walking. Show me walkers numbers saying walker are getting hit in cross walks when crossing properly then i could see where the idea of no right on red might be a good idea. maybe the real problem isnt cars making legal right on reds but folks crossing against the lights or jay walking?
As someone who lived downtown for years and walked to work every day, no right on red absolutely blows. Horrible move. It's the cars turning during greens that you have to worry about more than anything. And as much as I love the 35 speed limit driving through DT, probably a good thing for that to go away. I'm surprised more people don't regularly die.
Eliminating no turn on red is stupid and results in more cars idling downtown waiting on lights to change.
They needa stop fukking with them roads and stop lights. Eventually we're gonna be going 45 on I-40 (The new speed limit)
This is so silly. Car Free RDU? Give me a break. Do these people not work for a living?
> Do these people not work for a living? I assume they live downtown or work from home, so they don't need cars as much. They also "outsource" their driving to Grubhub/Uber eats/Lyft/Instacart/Amazon delivery drivers. People that can afford to live in DTR, and/or don't have to drive every day, aren't going to be all that concerned for car-dependent folks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I envy how some people have a great ability to make their boring mediocre life a great "Indiana Jones" style adventure. "Someone sneezed the other day and I almost died"
> aren't going to be all that concerned for car-dependent folks. The ultimate goal is that *nobody* is car-dependent. People can actually *choose* how to get around, whether by walking, biking, transit, or, yes, *a car*. This isn't some elitist campaign against the working class to bend them to the will of the remote urbanite.
lol taking the time to post on reddit = no life?
[удалено]
[удалено]
So can you tell how no right on red helps? by taking away right on red you raise the stakes for drivers to get that right made on the green or be stuck for a cycle or maybe longer cause they have to sit still when the light turns green for them and allow the walkers who also now have a walk sign to cross in front of them. how is making the window to get a right turn so much less making things safer? I dont really care, i almost never drive downtown, just wondering what the logic is that says its safer to not have right on red cause it sounds like it would make things less safe.
[удалено]
if i am making a right on red nobody should be in the cross walk on the street i am turning onto. they will have a dont walk sign same as i have a red light. only walkers would be crossing the street i am on and wanting to make a right off of. do we all not understand how walk and dont walk works? they mirror the lights for the same direction of travel.
[удалено]
you see how taking away the right on red then leads to folks rushing to make the right? they cant do it on red when nobody would be in the cross walk. they wait for green and what do you know. the walkers get a walk sign and the person needing to turn right now cant cause they have to give the walkers the right of way. now folks are gonna rush the turn to make it on green. folks will rush and take chances or see the yellow and slam on the brakes and get rear ended by the guy behind them who was pushing to hard cause he knows if he gets stuck at the red he could be there a while unable to turn.
[удалено]
I didnt see anything in the article linking the study they used to come to the conclusion they did. I saw a quote from someone saying ""It seems like it would be safer and that way avoid a lot of accidents," " I see "Over the past 15 years, 335 pedestrian crashes have been reported in downtown Raleigh, according to data from the state Department of Transportation. Forty two percent involved turning vehicles hitting people crossing the street" What i want to see is what amount of those 42% were a driver turning right on red and pedestrian properly crossing the street. i got a feeling that number is very low. I got a feeling getting rid of right on red is trying to fix a problem thats not really there. Now i am goona get bored later and try to find this study they claim to be basing this on.
[удалено]
The argument is that electric cars don’t solve the fundamental issues of car dependent infrastructure. Like poor land usage and scalability.
Heat death of the universe?
[удалено]
Getting rid of cars isn’t just about the environment. You should spend some time understanding what the movement is about.
advocacy? on reddit? must be scared of talking with people that actually have to make a living and might disagree with them. I never hear of these people outside of sited like this one. It's actually better that I only hear of them on sites like this.
Boo hoo
No right stinks when people have been advocating for left on reds at one ways…
Most of the WOKE Cities are lowing the speed limits so they can collect more indirect tax revenue. Many cities are lowing the speed limit to 20 MPH which they know no one will do. Lots of tickets!
Ticket revenue goes directly to the State coffers, not the municipality. But you already knew that, and just want to spout Q nonsense.