• my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s not a change “now”, it was when the rule was implemented. From the article I’m sure you read before posting:

    It’s unclear that right-on-red did much of anything to reduce gas consumption, but it had a sizable effect on roadway safety. A 1982 study found that the new policy triggered a sharp increase in crashes involving conflicts between a pedestrian or cyclist and a right-turning vehicle. In Ohio, for instance, such collisions rose 57% for pedestrians and 80% for cyclists; in Wisconsin, the figures were 107% and 72%, respectively.

    And this is the study linked in that paragraph.

    • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Right on red does work, that’s why UPS and other delivery companies prioritize it. They save 10’s of thousands of cars worth of gas a year. Not only that, but any meaningful study would include congestion statistics of additional right-turning cars.

      Don’t know about other cities, but the bike issue wouldn’t apply since they wouldn’t cross paths. Well… I guess now they do actually post-construction. Guess that adds to the cognitive load the author talked about.

      All in all, I’m not a journalist, and I can only point out results of these measures as I’ve witnessed. What I have experienced is much more congestion due to cars unable to leave the main flow of traffic. I can not enphesize it enough; It’s significant

      Just make eye contact peeps. Seriously. Problem solved.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        “Saving the gas is worth hitting a few of those pesky cyclists or pedestrians anyway. Just a cost of effeciency in the system” -your selfish car brained argument in a nutshell.