• BolexForSoup@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have to admit this thread and post are very informative. I have never questioned it, right on red has just always been something I could do since I got my driver’s license. Didn’t realize it was so controversial! TIL after ~20 years lol

    • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      Didn’t realize it was so controversial!

      If by controversial you mean dangerous, then yes, it is. It is one of the main ways in which pedestrians are killed in North America. In most developed countries it is illegal.

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those last two sentences, replace pedestrians with hot topic victims and this could be any thread.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s problematic at best, dangerously stupid at worst.

      • It introduces a conflict point between traffic coming from the left heading straight and traffic intending to turn right.
      • The driver that wants to turn right has to look very far to the left and to the right.
      • The driver that wants to turn right has to determine if they have the right of way.

      In most European countries (maybe all), right-turning lanes often have an additional signal that allows cars to turn right even if the main signal is red. It serves the same purpose as right-on-red, but eliminates the issues I’ve listed because it’s green only when traffic from the left is stopped.

      • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Makes sense. I’m never against more rules governing cars, personally. Sounds like right on red is a bit too much discretion for drivers.