Restricting Right Turns on Red

[MidTowner]

I was going to post this to the General Road thread, but it's closed.

The Regional Sustainability Committee will discuss a motion to look at restricting right turns on red and installing leading pedestrian intervals at strategic intersections.

The text of the motion can be found on the agenda here

The media (CBC, CTV, etc.) has decided to implicitly treat this motion as discussing a ban on right turns on red Region-wide, but that's not at all the case.

[Spokes]

To do it (or anything region wide) rather than on a case by case basis would be foolish. I certainly hope it's not the case.

[danbrotherston]

To do it (or anything region wide) rather than on a case by case basis would be foolish. I certainly hope it's not the case.

There are benefits to doing things region/city wide (or even better province wide, but city wide is probably 90% of the benefit) because it becomes normalized and simplified, rather than a special case that you have to notice. It's the reason that the speed limit reductions were applied neighbourhood wide (and even better would have been doing so city wide).

It also means you don't have to have more signage at all the intersections where you already have a lot of complexity and you don't want to distract people.

This is also the way it is done in Montreal, with these signs on the bridges onto the island: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Montre...FQAw%3D%3D

Doing it this way can improve compliance and safety.

If you are concerned that the exceptions where it doesn't make sense (which to me are few--basically it has to be somewhere that there is no crosswalk) will decrease compliance, well, I don't really believe that most drivers think that deeply about it, but if you must, it is entirely possible to add a permission sign in those rare cases. And in fact, there is even such a sign in the city I live in, albeit, applying to cyclists, which basically indicates that cyclists make make a right turn on red (although in true Dutch fashion, it is still gated such that it is turned off when the crosswalk signal is on).

[ZEBuilder]

While it may not make sense to have it everywhere it does allow for the implementation of LPI and LBI (leading pedestrian/bike interval) which the Region has started to implement in some locations (Union and Westmount). You don't inherently need right on red restrictions for LPI and LBI but by implementing LPI and LBI you already make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists then you add the right on red restriction it increases it more.

The problem with a piecemeal system which this would be is people still wouldn't follow it unless there is adequate enforcement which we know won't happen. One just has to look at the number of LRT crashes from disobeying signage to realize this.

[dtkvictim]

It doesn't help when signage isn't even placed appropriately. I've been meaning to figure out who to complain to about the one at King and Water which is usually ignored and I can't blame drivers for it.

The sign is 1) not hung on the opposite side of the intersection's traffic light like usual, 2) is obscured by a tree on approach, and 3) is located behind the vehicle stopped at the line.



I think at least downtown could benefit from a blanket ban. There are so many turns right now where it's permitted despite being a completely unreasonable maneuver. I think part of the problem is that many drivers think that needing to completely block a pedestrian crosswalk in order to see cross traffic is acceptable, but really that should automatically prohibit right on red at least in high pedestrian areas.

[bravado]

Speaking of signage... this one comes up on some "urbanist" feeds. Why are our traffic lights so high and placed on the other side of the intersection? There's an argument to be made that drivers waiting for a green light should be looking much closer to their vehicle, not staring across the whole intersection and ~5m up in the sky.

As for the right turn on red, it's a tough argument to say that safety is priority #1 but we need to debate every single time we want to actually make it #1.

[panamaniac]

Speaking of signage... this one comes up on some "urbanist" feeds. Why are our traffic lights so high and placed on the other side of the intersection? There's an argument to be made that drivers waiting for a green light should be looking much closer to their vehicle, not staring across the whole intersection and ~5m up in the sky.

As for the right turn on red, it's a tough argument to say that safety is priority #1 but we need to debate every single time we want to actually make it #1.

I believe it comes from the unspoken belief that a significant percentage of drivers are not competent to be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

[dtkvictim]

Speaking of signage... this one comes up on some "urbanist" feeds. Why are our traffic lights so high and placed on the other side of the intersection? There's an argument to be made that drivers waiting for a green light should be looking much closer to their vehicle, not staring across the whole intersection and ~5m up in the sky.

As for the right turn on red, it's a tough argument to say that safety is priority #1 but we need to debate every single time we want to actually make it #1.

I believe it comes from the unspoken belief that a significant percentage of drivers are not competent to be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

I don't think I understand the argument being made here. Do higher and further signals accommodate bad drivers?

Aside from near-side signals forcing drivers to stay behind the stop bar, are there other advantages? And wouldn't keeping your eyes focused on a point before the intersection be worse for context gathering than focusing on the far side which brings the entire intersection within your focus? Near side signals are also often still up high forcing you look up at an even further angle away from the road, or off to the side again forcing your eyes away from the full intersection.

[bravado]

I believe it comes from the unspoken belief that a significant percentage of drivers are not competent to be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

I don't think I understand the argument being made here. Do higher and further signals accommodate bad drivers?

Aside from near-side signals forcing drivers to stay behind the stop bar, are there other advantages? And wouldn't keeping your eyes focused on a point before the intersection be worse for context gathering than focusing on the far side which brings the entire intersection within your focus? Near side signals are also often still up high forcing you look up at an even further angle away from the road, or off to the side again forcing your eyes away from the full intersection.

I don't want to derail the whole thread - but in "Europe", the lights are much more likely to be physically positioned at the stop line. Drivers need to be looking very near their car to get instructions and are therefore more aware of pedestrians and cyclists physically nearby. Also, if the light is positioned at the stop line, you can't creep past the line and cover the crosswalk because the light will be behind you and you won't know when to go again. Our current light placement encourages people to creep forward and not pay attention to anything in the nearest crosswalk - because they're looking elsewhere (and not even looking at pedestrian-level).

Here's a few examples of European traffic lights that are positioned up close to the stop line. You really can't creep into the intersection if the light is physically behind you.

[dtkvictim]

I don't want to derail the whole thread - but in "Europe", the lights are much more likely to be physically positioned at the stop line. Drivers need to be looking very near their car to get instructions and are therefore more aware of pedestrians and cyclists physically nearby. Also, if the light is positioned at the stop line, you can't creep past the line and cover the crosswalk because the light will be behind you and you won't know when to go again. Our current light placement encourages people to creep forward and not pay attention to anything in the nearest crosswalk - because they're looking elsewhere (and not even looking at pedestrian-level).

Yeah this might derail the thread, but it's all related to intersection safety I guess.

Yes, that all addressed what I was already in agreement on (forcing you to stay behind the stop bar).

What I'm not convinced about is that looking at near-side signals force people into a better position to be aware of their surroundings, which you haven't really addressed. Take a look at the second photo you provided for example:

The signal for straight traffic is still high up, but since it's much closer the driver is looking even further away (up at a higher angle) from where pedestrians are than if it was on the far side. I haven't driven anywhere with lights like that, but I imagine you need to physically tilt your head up to see that light, and tilt it back down to check the intersection is clear before proceeding on a green. With a far side light you are just flicking your eyes up and down.

The signal for the right turn, including the lower curb side one, is even worse. A driver watching it is looking to their right the entire time when the most immediate traffic is coming from the left. A late pedestrian, cyclist, or vehicle (none of whom should usually be there, but it happens) would be basically out of the field of view. A far side signal would at least have them in your periphery.

What this photo does capture is the separation of signals for crossing pedestrians and right turning vehicles which is much more important than signal placement anyways.

[ijmorlan]

It doesn't help when signage isn't even placed appropriately. I've been meaning to figure out who to complain to about the one at King and Water which is usually ignored and I can't blame drivers for it.

The sign is 1) not hung on the opposite side of the intersection's traffic light like usual, 2) is obscured by a tree on approach, and 3) is located behind the vehicle stopped at the line.

Wow, that one is really bad.

I’ve actually thought about this a bit although more in the context of turn restrictions, and I’ve concluded that the sign handbook should be updated to require that all such signs must be mounted immediately next to the traffic lights, and must be duplicated in exactly the same way as the traffic lights. So you would have, as you do now, duplicate traffic lights; and then next to each duplicate, you would have an identical set of signs, for example no left turn and no right turn on red.

The way it is now, with different signs on different duplicate signals (and sometimes, as in your example, not even near the signals), means you have to look at both duplicates to be sure of seeing all the applicable signs.

[danbrotherston]

At least the traffic engineers I’ve spoken to argue the positioning of the traffic signals is a safety feature necessary to make them visible in case drivers do overrun the stop line. It’s a safety feature in the form of permissive safety the same as wide lanes but the same as other permissive safety features it ends up causing the very problem it intends to be resilient to.

However there is an additional problem with stop lights on the far side—in some cases, especially with complex intersections, drivers may cross the bar and enter the intersection, then see the light turn red and wrongly stop in the middle of the intersection because of it.

To me, near side signals make much more sense, it’s the same logic as with stop sign placement.

Unfortunately the OTM requires far side signals. (Maybe it’s possible to have both but both might not be better and would definitely be expensive)

[dtkvictim]

However there is an additional problem with stop lights on the far side—in some cases, especially with complex intersections, drivers may cross the bar and enter the intersection, then see the light turn red and wrongly stop in the middle of the intersection because of it.

This made me realize that near-side signals are also probably incompatible with unprotected left turns (or at least fairly problematic). Many intersections here, at least during higher traffic times of day, depend on vehicles waiting in the intersection and only actually clearing on it yellow/red.

[danbrotherston]

However there is an additional problem with stop lights on the far side—in some cases, especially with complex intersections, drivers may cross the bar and enter the intersection, then see the light turn red and wrongly stop in the middle of the intersection because of it.

This made me realize that near-side signals are also probably incompatible with unprotected left turns (or at least fairly problematic). Many intersections here, at least during higher traffic times of day, depend on vehicles waiting in the intersection and only actually clearing on it yellow/red.

Yeah, that is also true. That is another thing that simply doesn't exist here.

[Kodra24]

However there is an additional problem with stop lights on the far side—in some cases, especially with complex intersections, drivers may cross the bar and enter the intersection, then see the light turn red and wrongly stop in the middle of the intersection because of it.

This made me realize that near-side signals are also probably incompatible with unprotected left turns (or at least fairly problematic). Many intersections here, at least during higher traffic times of day, depend on vehicles waiting in the intersection and only actually clearing on it yellow/red.

Good point. I do like the current system of having traffic lights straight ahead in front of you instead of to the immediate left/right - who wants to strain their neck having to wait for the change? Also if a pedestrian is late crossing from the other side of where you're looking at you're smoking them once the light turns green