Right on red keeps traffic moving, but hte traffic is only there because a giant century long conspiracy against public transit, bikes, and pedestrians. But Idk what would even happen without right on red, because it'd fuck with the whole rest of an already not well built traffic system that was shoved in to cities it has no place being.
Debatable in a lot of cases because the underlying presumption is it allows cars to slip in when nobody else is inconvenienced (as that would be illegal), which is the sort of thought that underlies a lot of especially car brained traffic planning and also has 0 answer as to why the outcome of that design fails constantly everywhere
Strong agree. I perceive it as allowing traffic to keep moving despite poorly timed lights but I can acknowledge that my perception is not data or evidence!
In some cases you'd be right. In others, since the city didn't plan for it, there would be massive extra traffic in a lot of places because people can't turn right on red. We're not talking about an extra 3 minutes at a light. We're talking about a lane that is usually semi-steadily moving coming to a standstill multiplied by however many lights allow that in the city. So either millions of people in cities like Houston, New York, LA, and Chicago need to leave half an hour earlier (adding 130 hours a year to their commute) or be late.
A lot of that could be solved by not forcing people who don't need to be in an office back into the office, put in proper bicycle lanes, and redesigning city centers as places to eat, walk, experience a city, and live rather than just office buildings. But the last one is a little ambitious on the short term scale.
Edit: and transit. I fucking forgot transit because it's so garbage here that I never remember it's a thing.
Literally no traffic reduction scheme has ever worked. Making driving easier only ever leads to more driving. Therefore, making driving worse and slower may well lead to less driving.
If they'd fix transit here I'd be all over it. I think a lot of others would be as well.
Doesn't really matter to me because I do work from home. No right on red? Not my problem. Buti do care about others. So the fact that the average commute loses working folks almost a week every year hurts my heart. Losing almost another week without a transit plan (or any kind of fucking plan.....I may be a little angry) in place hurts my heart. So does injuring or killing cyclists.
I think there's probably a nuanced and thoughtful answer that would reduce the time folks are on the road (costing both time and money, plus a lot of them have to find off hours child care) for work while not killing cyclists. I don't have that answer. I just don't think making things more terrible is it. I think there's got to be a way to offer an incentive not to be on the road, protecting everyone and not stealing money and time from workers.
Doesn't really matter to me because I do work from home. No right on red? Not my problem. Buti do care about others. So the fact that the average commute loses working folks almost a week every year hurts my heart.
Everytime nature evaporates some critical road there's like 0 long term discernible rise in traffic.
People who commute really do need to do that, aye? Like, that's not an optional trip, right?
Roads don't really discern for reason on any basis. If you make it easier, shit just fills up with people going for cross-city donut runs or whatever until you're left back at where you started as per traffic.
Virtually everyone outside of certain cities drives, though. Without infrastructure to provide an alternative to driving - at a minimum, a bus route, which not even that will happen near here - people are going to drive even if it sucks. It already sucks and people are still spending a plurality of their income maintaining their car.
I'd be curious to see the math bc given how badly a lot of the streets are laid out in this country it could be 30s or 30 minutes depending on how the light intervals worked out, traffic, whatever.
sure it might save a few lives, but millions will be late
tbh if your commute is so fucking tight that you can't spare a few extra seconds at a stop light, something is wrong.
it's America, everything is wrong.
Right on red keeps traffic moving, but hte traffic is only there because a giant century long conspiracy against public transit, bikes, and pedestrians. But Idk what would even happen without right on red, because it'd fuck with the whole rest of an already not well built traffic system that was shoved in to cities it has no place being.
Debatable in a lot of cases because the underlying presumption is it allows cars to slip in when nobody else is inconvenienced (as that would be illegal), which is the sort of thought that underlies a lot of especially car brained traffic planning and also has 0 answer as to why the outcome of that design fails constantly everywhere
Strong agree. I perceive it as allowing traffic to keep moving despite poorly timed lights but I can acknowledge that my perception is not data or evidence!
Both making driving worse and making bike and transit better are good to do people should be actively punished for driving
Both are wrong. We must unmake this wretched reality and construct a new, glorious paradigm built around moving walkways that go very, very fast.
The Roads Must Roll (1940)
that's just a train with no chassis
In some cases you'd be right. In others, since the city didn't plan for it, there would be massive extra traffic in a lot of places because people can't turn right on red. We're not talking about an extra 3 minutes at a light. We're talking about a lane that is usually semi-steadily moving coming to a standstill multiplied by however many lights allow that in the city. So either millions of people in cities like Houston, New York, LA, and Chicago need to leave half an hour earlier (adding 130 hours a year to their commute) or be late.
A lot of that could be solved by not forcing people who don't need to be in an office back into the office, put in proper bicycle lanes, and redesigning city centers as places to eat, walk, experience a city, and live rather than just office buildings. But the last one is a little ambitious on the short term scale.
Edit: and transit. I fucking forgot transit because it's so garbage here that I never remember it's a thing.
Literally no traffic reduction scheme has ever worked. Making driving easier only ever leads to more driving. Therefore, making driving worse and slower may well lead to less driving.
If they'd fix transit here I'd be all over it. I think a lot of others would be as well.
Doesn't really matter to me because I do work from home. No right on red? Not my problem. Buti do care about others. So the fact that the average commute loses working folks almost a week every year hurts my heart. Losing almost another week without a transit plan (or any kind of fucking plan.....I may be a little angry) in place hurts my heart. So does injuring or killing cyclists.
I think there's probably a nuanced and thoughtful answer that would reduce the time folks are on the road (costing both time and money, plus a lot of them have to find off hours child care) for work while not killing cyclists. I don't have that answer. I just don't think making things more terrible is it. I think there's got to be a way to offer an incentive not to be on the road, protecting everyone and not stealing money and time from workers.
The nuanced answer is ban cars immediately with no transition at the federal level. That will instantly cut commute times.
Fuck your heart, the person who hit me with their car last week hurts my legs. Make driving worse.
Everytime nature evaporates some critical road there's like 0 long term discernible rise in traffic.
People who commute really do need to do that, aye? Like, that's not an optional trip, right?
Roads don't really discern for reason on any basis. If you make it easier, shit just fills up with people going for cross-city donut runs or whatever until you're left back at where you started as per traffic.
Virtually everyone outside of certain cities drives, though. Without infrastructure to provide an alternative to driving - at a minimum, a bus route, which not even that will happen near here - people are going to drive even if it sucks. It already sucks and people are still spending a plurality of their income maintaining their car.
Skill issue
By 36 seconds. Oh, the humanity!
I'd be curious to see the math bc given how badly a lot of the streets are laid out in this country it could be 30s or 30 minutes depending on how the light intervals worked out, traffic, whatever.
deleted by creator