@davidzipper @capntransit

Right on red — drivers rank their own risk in merging by the pace of oncoming traffic from the left.

Left yield (2way streets) suffers similarly except that the turning vehicle is looking ahead at oncoming instead of over their shoulder for pedestrian crossings. Some high profile deaths in NYC for sure on that kind of turn.

I hope they’ll bring the pedestrian scramble to NYC so that there at least is one interval when you don’t need to scramble to cross safely.

@davidzipper

Before I moved to Montreal I would have ardently supported right-on-red. But after cycling, walking, and occasionally driving in the city with no right on red for the past five years it's become crystal clear how much allowing the practice makes cities hostile toward humans.

It really only makes sense if you consider cars to be the only kind of 'traffic' on our streets.

@davidzipper

I had no idea the right-on-red shift happened so recently, or that the feds forced states/cities to do it under ostensible fuel consumption measures.

This phrase made me chuckle, even if it's a rather dark observation: "As with so many factors contributing to the crisis in American roadway safety, blame for right-on-red falls largely on the federal government."

@davidzipper as you state, I as a driver have become quite accustomed to it. I even remember as a kid scoffing at my dad (who learned how to drive before the federal law) pausing at lights and waiting for it.

I also wasn't aware just how bad it was for pedestrian safety. I'm in support.

@davidzipper Traffic rules are best when they are simple, clear, and doesn’t have any conditionals. It’s effectively a program or algorithm if you will that needs to be installed in all drivers heads, and the human brain is terrible for that.

Green go. Red stop. So simple.

I also like the three cycle in areas with heavy walking traffic. No walking during the two first ones, and only walking during the third, with the option to walk diagonally. Very simple.