CombatWombatEsq@lemmy.world to Fuck Cars@lemmy.worldEnglish · 6 months agoIt’s time to ban ‘right-on-red’www.fastcompany.comexternal-linkmessage-square148fedilinkarrow-up1319arrow-down1157
arrow-up1162arrow-down1external-linkIt’s time to ban ‘right-on-red’www.fastcompany.comCombatWombatEsq@lemmy.world to Fuck Cars@lemmy.worldEnglish · 6 months agomessage-square148fedilink
minus-squareperviouslyiner@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up26arrow-down4·edit-26 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squareWhipperSnapper@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up33·6 months agoThat’s a different situation though. A green arrow means you have full right of way to make the turn. Right-on-red is more like a stop sign.
minus-squarewildginger@lemmy.myserv.onelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up18arrow-down1·6 months agoInsanely frustrating how 50+% of this thread is people flatly arguing against a situation they just dont understand. Not even a disagreement of opinion, just flatly arguing about a topic that has nothing to do with turning right on a red light intersection.
minus-squareduffman@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·6 months agoWell, people are arguing cases for different countries in the same thread.
minus-squarewildginger@lemmy.myserv.onelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·6 months agoMan, I dont even mean different legal situations. So many people in here dont get what “right on red” means in a physical, moving sense.
minus-squareCJOtheReal@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-26 months agoRemoved by mod
minus-squareAA5B@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14arrow-down7·6 months agoPersonally I do think that’s the real reason behind right on red: saving money for towns who don’t want to invest in more complicated traffic lights. Trading increased injuries for saving a little money
minus-squarejerkface@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9arrow-down1·6 months agoIt costs nothing to make people wait for a green.
minus-squareduffman@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down5·6 months agoYou just listed the cost. Time. Another is reduced thouroughput/increased traffic.
minus-squarejerkface@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·edit-26 months agoDude. Fucking context: saving money for towns who don’t want to invest in more complicated traffic lights
minus-squareFredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 months agoIt’ll cost them the election, that’s what
minus-squareedric@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 months agoIt’s even worse in some places like Texas where there is a right turn arrow but it’s not illegal to make a right on red either.
deleted by creator
That’s a different situation though. A green arrow means you have full right of way to make the turn. Right-on-red is more like a stop sign.
Insanely frustrating how 50+% of this thread is people flatly arguing against a situation they just dont understand.
Not even a disagreement of opinion, just flatly arguing about a topic that has nothing to do with turning right on a red light intersection.
Well, people are arguing cases for different countries in the same thread.
Man, I dont even mean different legal situations. So many people in here dont get what “right on red” means in a physical, moving sense.
Removed by mod
Personally I do think that’s the real reason behind right on red: saving money for towns who don’t want to invest in more complicated traffic lights. Trading increased injuries for saving a little money
It costs nothing to make people wait for a green.
You just listed the cost. Time. Another is reduced thouroughput/increased traffic.
Dude. Fucking context:
It’ll cost them the election, that’s what
It’s even worse in some places like Texas where there is a right turn arrow but it’s not illegal to make a right on red either.