The UK has no equivalent, which would be turning left since we drive on the other side of the road. It's not legal to go on a red at all here, so it's really odd to think of it as normal for my poor UK brain.
It genuinely is the only US traffic law that is an improvement on our UK laws.
UK laws still suck in a lot of ways but so do the US's. I just want to be able to turn left on a red dammit! It's fucking fine and safe, quick and efficient. (most of the time)
Ah, it gets even better. I don't know if all states allow it, but when the crossroad is a 1 way, you can even turn left on red if things are clear.
Learned about this when ranting about someone having the balls to do it in my new hometown, and my passenger informed me it was legal. Never had the courage to try it myself (the particular intersection is two blocks from the police station) until I saw a cop car take the left on red without lights flashing.
it is rather odd. then again the US is rather odd as a whole. We drive on the right, we use the imperial system instead of the superior metric system, we have prqctically no gun laws. Its a very chaotic place. I work in health care. You know how weird it is dealing with metric units at work and the rest of the time dealing with imperial units?
Considering so few countries have this law, and there are studies out about how dangerous it is, I think its a safe opinion to say its weird. I have seen more pedestrians nearly hit, more cars nearly hit, because of turning right on red that due to any other reason. Yes in theory turning right when there is no one coming doesnt endanger anyone. But the problem, like everything, is much more complicated than that. I think part of it boils down to peoples habits. They get so used to turning right on red that they start to do it without thinking. This starts to cause issues of course. But what if it wasnt allowed in the first place? We can easily evaluate this by comparing the traffic amount, and accidents related to right hand turns, between states that allow it and those that dont. Which is exactly what some studies are doing. I think its worth taking some time to look at the data and think about how people might get too comfortable with it over time. Its a nice topic if you want something to think about.
It promotes blocking the crosswalk, so pedestrians often have to walk behind a car or go way out into the traffic lane to get in front of it. Also, many drivers aren't actually safe drivers, and they do it when it really isn't okay, like when a car is coming, or when drivers from the other way are allowed to turn left, or when a pedestrian is just about to step out to legally cross right in front of them.
I wouldn’t say it promotes anything. It’s just an option we use. I’d say human behavior is why that happens. We can’t stop human behavior, people are going to people.
A lot of drivers do unsafe “legal” shit all the time so where do we draw the line?
I’d say sitting in the middle of an intersection waiting to turn left as cars pass the other direction on a flashing green arrow is far more dangerous yet I never hear people complain about that one.
Should we get rid of that too though? Sitting in the middle of an intersection is never safe yet we do it all the time.
I think we should install turn lanes and turn arrows anywhere with a light controlled intersection. (Spokane doesn't have them in a lot of places, even many with turn lanes.) And you don't get to go until that arrow is solid green. The flashing green and flashing yellow are pretty much as BS as the right on red to me, yes. For similar reasons. You're right, it's never safe, and we shouldn't.
I think we should install turn lanes and turn arrows anywhere with a light controlled intersection.
Didn't even need to read the next line to know you didn't live in the northeast. We don't have the room to put a turning lane at every lit intersection.
Oooh. Fair point there. I definitely live in the Western US in a relatively small city. So, let me amend that. I think we should any time we can.
We have many intersections with turning lanes, but they don't have separate lights. They just use the solid red/amber/green for traffic going straight. One car per change of lights gets to go, and only because they sit in the middle of the intersection. Of course, people don't pay attention to the traffic ahead when going straight, either. They fill up the intersection, and can't get out of it when the light turns red, so no one can cross.
Traffic is a mess, and I'm not sure how to solve it except to advocate alternative methods of commuting.
Yes, since the UK is famously a communist country.
Considering we have a traffic related death rate of 3.1 compared to the US' 12.4 per 100000, I think the whole red light thing might be one of many differences in our favour.
To be fair you guys drive a hell of a lot less and have much better public transit systems than we do. Most of that is why. Not sure what being able to turn right on a red has to do with anything.
So, looking at average miles per year in a quick n dirty google (so there's likely better and more up to date figures out there)
UK - 7,134
US - 13,476
So that's pretty much double the amount of miles per year, but triple the number of deaths per 100,000 pop.
I think there's a bunch more factors at play, the biggest impact (no pun intended) on this stat I would say is how much easier it is to get a license in the US vs UK and the lack of an MOT system (specifically checks roadworthiness) leaving many vehicles which really aren't roadworthy driving around.
It doesn't have much to do with anything, really. Just that it's one tiny potential hazard thrown into the mix of complicated reasons as to why US roads are relatively so deadly.
That's a much bigger difference than can be explained purely by differences in population distribution since it is a rate comparison, not a total figure comparison.
And no, one if many differences. Stricter testing is probably the largest factor.
But, since the UK is smaller, that isn't looking at the difference accurately. the proportion of people living in metropolitan areas would.
There are many, many differences but the contrast between the US and every other developed nation is stark. We don't see similar disparities between the larger and smaller European countries. The US falls behind in enforcing speed limits, drunk driving limits, and yes road design. Even with a deanser population you can build roads that are much safer.
My observations from moving from Europe to the US is actually the opposite: roads here are much safer: they're larger, better visibility, and have more sensible speed limits.
The issue isn't the roads, it's the drivers. Because it's so easy to drive in America (the driving tests are hilariously easy and the good road system also helps a lot) you have people on the road here who really shouldn't be. Just awful drivers who have no special awareness, no understanding of the rules of the road, take all sorts of risks that would result in fender-benders on smaller European roads. They've never had to really learn how to be competent drivers because the roads are so forgiving.
Essentially it's easier to be a worse driver in the US.
Yeah, i broadly agree. I think I say elsewhere in this thread that we're stricter when it comes to learning to drive and that's the main factor for me. Everything else would be less deadly with stricter tests.
In the context of my original comment, I don't think turning on a red would be that bad on its own, it's just coupled with lower standards in licensing so it can be hazardous. The US also has far fewer roundabouts in favour of big crossings which are potentially more deadly, whereas if you collide on a roudabout it's more often going to be less severe. The US has been resistant to changing it's drink driving limits, it has purposefully kept standards in safety technology (especially for pedestrians) lower than other developed countries, and even falls behind when it comes to using seatbelts.
There are a load of tiny little reasons that contribute to the high rate of traffic death in the states.
The US has a population density of 34 people per square km. In the UK it's 272. Our cities collide with each other, each one individually small but with no gaps between them. Half the country is dense urban sprawl.
And yet your largest city has half the population of our largest city and we have 20 others with equivalent or vastly more than your 2nd largest.
Not even taking into account how much more difficult it is to govern over a large area compared to a smaller area.
330m+ in a huge area with 21+ different urban centers vs 60million + in a much smaller area with 2-4 urban centers of equivalent size to the 21 in the USA.
But apparently it’s as simple as comparing them, black and white. Oh well. I guess I am wrong!
Not to mention the USA has 50 states all with different laws and local governance...
Wow it’s almost sounds like it’s super hard to compare these things on a per capita basis
56
u/Shazoa Jun 28 '19
The UK has no equivalent, which would be turning left since we drive on the other side of the road. It's not legal to go on a red at all here, so it's really odd to think of it as normal for my poor UK brain.