In June, Sophee Langerman experienced a harrowing incident on her way to a bicycle safety rally in Chicago’s Lakeview neighborhood.
As she was walking her bike off the curb and into the crosswalk, a car turning right carelessly rolled through a red light and collided with her.
Fortunately, Langerman managed to escape with minor injuries, but her bicycle suffered significant damage, necessitating extensive repairs.
This incident has further fueled Langerman’s determination to advocate for the cessation of a long-standing practice that has been adopted by almost all cities in the United States: the legal allowance for drivers to turn right after coming to a stop at a red light.
The alarming surge in accidents resulting in the death or injury of pedestrians and bicyclists has prompted numerous policy and infrastructure modifications.
However, the proposal to ban right turns on red has sparked fervent debates and elicited passionate opinions from both proponents and opponents of the idea.
The issue of right turns on red lights has been a topic of discussion and debate in various cities across the United States.
In Washington, D.C., the City Council approved a ban on right turns on red, which is set to take effect in 2025.
Meanwhile, the new Mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, has included a plan to restrict right turns on red in his transition plan, but the specifics of this plan have not yet been provided by his administration.
Similarly, the college town of Ann Arbor, Michigan, has already implemented a prohibition on right turns at red lights in the downtown area.
These decisions have been made in an effort to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as to reduce the number of accidents caused by drivers who fail to yield to oncoming traffic or pedestrians when making right turns on red.
While some have criticized these measures as being overly restrictive, others argue that they are necessary to ensure the safety of all road users.
As such, it remains to be seen whether other cities will follow suit and implement similar bans on right turns on red lights in the future.
In a recent development, the leaders of San Francisco have made a decision to strongly recommend the transportation agency to implement a ban on right turns on red throughout the entire city.
This move has caught the attention of other major cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle, and Denver, who have also started considering similar bans.
The proponents of this ban argue that drivers should not have the authority to independently determine when it is safe to make a right turn on red.
According to Langerman, a 26-year-old advocate for this ban, people nowadays are often preoccupied and easily distracted, making it imperative to remove this decision-making responsibility from drivers.
However, Jay Beeber, the executive director for policy at the National Motorists Association, a prominent advocacy organization for drivers, disagrees with this notion.
Beeber dismisses the assumption that such blanket bans would enhance road safety, labeling it as a “fallacy.” He supports his argument by referring to an upcoming study conducted by his association, which examines crash data from California spanning from 2011 to 2019.
The study reveals that incidents involving drivers turning right on red only accounted for approximately one pedestrian death and less than one bicyclist death statewide every two years.
In response to the argument that the movement towards making driving more difficult and unpleasant is driven by an agenda, safety advocates argue that official crash reports often fail to accurately capture the true dangers of the road.
However, it is worth noting that the United States stands out among major countries for its general allowance of right turns on red.
This practice was initially permitted as a response to the energy crisis in the 1970s, with the government warning states that they could potentially lose federal funding if they prohibited right turns on red, except in specific designated areas.
While the provision to cap speed limits at 55 mph has long been abandoned, the allowance of right turns on red has persisted.
Critics argue that this policy is flawed, with Bill Schultheiss, director of engineering at Toole Design Group, a public transportation consulting firm, stating that it made sense during the gas crisis but failed to consider the full consequences.
The issue of right on red has long been a contentious one in various parts of the United States, particularly in New York City where it has never been allowed.
In fact, large signs are strategically placed throughout Manhattan to alert both locals and visitors that this practice is strictly prohibited.
However, up until last year, right on red was the default policy practically everywhere else in the country. This change in policy came about as a result of a vote in Washington, D.C., where safety advocates advocated for the elimination of right on red.
While this decision was met with approval from those concerned with road safety, there is a growing concern that drivers may push back against this change.
Furthermore, there is also a debate surrounding the potential implementation of the so-called Idaho Stop, a policy that permits cyclists to proceed through a red light after coming to a complete stop and ensuring that it is safe to do so.
As Washington, D.C. considers this additional change, safety advocates are bracing themselves for potential backlash from drivers who may view these new policies as inconvenient or disruptive to their daily commute.
In the realm of public opinion, there are certain battles where one must accept the necessity of sacrificing it in order to ensure the safety of the people.
This sentiment was expressed by Jonathan Kincade, the communications coordinator at the Washington Area Bicyclists Association.
Kincade argues that it is illogical to treat cars and bicycles in the same manner, as they are fundamentally different vehicles, and the consequences of this approach have been evident.
On the other hand, critics contend that implementing a ban on right turns on red not only inconveniences motorists but also hampers the efficiency of commuter buses and deliveries.
While the United Parcel Service has not taken an official stance on right on red, it has long instructed its drivers to avoid left turns whenever possible, deeming them to be inefficient.
Priya Sarathy Jones, the deputy executive director at the Fines and Fees Justice Center, expresses concerns regarding the potential consequences of penalties resulting from right-on-red bans.
She believes that these penalties will disproportionately affect lower-income drivers, who rely on driving to work because they cannot afford housing near public transportation.
Jones predicts that increased enforcement at red lights will lead to an expansion of traffic cameras. The mention of red light policy in the Chicago area often brings to mind the region’s infamous red-light camera program, which resulted in bribery charges against public officials accused of attempting to influence lucrative contracts.
Jones argues that instead of prioritizing revenue generation for the city, decisions regarding road safety should be based on evidence-backed strategies.
She suggests that investing in road infrastructure improvements would be a more effective approach to reducing accidents.
Currently, there are no recent nationwide studies available that specifically examine the number of injuries or fatalities caused by right-turning drivers.
However, a national report by the Governors Highway Safety Association reveals that in 2022, over 7,500 pedestrians were struck and killed by automobiles, marking the highest number since 1981.
This increase in pedestrian accidents is attributed, in part, to the growing presence of larger vehicles, such as SUVs and pickup trucks, on the roads.
Furthermore, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducted a study that found the odds of a pedestrian being killed when struck by a right-turning automobile were 89% higher if the vehicle was a pickup truck and 63% higher if it was an SUV.
This is due to the larger blind spots and the deadlier force associated with heavier vehicle models.
In conclusion, Priya Sarathy Jones raises important concerns about the potential impact of penalties resulting from right-on-red bans on lower-income drivers.
She emphasizes the need for evidence-based safety strategies instead of revenue-driven decision-making.
The absence of recent nationwide studies specifically focusing on accidents caused by right-turning drivers highlights the need for further research in this area.
Additionally, the presence of larger vehicles on the roads has contributed to an increase in pedestrian fatalities, with pickup trucks and SUVs posing a greater risk due to their larger blind spots and greater force upon impact.
The issue of right-on-red policies and their impact on pedestrian and cyclist safety has been a subject of debate for many years. While much of the research on this topic is dated, both sides of the argument believe that it remains relevant in today’s context.
A 1994 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) examined crash data from Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, and Illinois.
The study identified 558 injury crashes and four fatalities resulting from right turns on red. Those advocating for a ban on right-on-red argue that this study was conducted before the significant increase in the size and lethality of the nation’s vehicle fleet.
However, the National Motorists Association conducted a study in California that found that even when accidents occurred due to right turns on red, at least 96% of the injuries sustained by pedestrians or cyclists were minor.
While this statistic may suggest a relatively low risk, proponents of a ban argue that even a single injury or death is unacceptable.
Washington state Senator John Lovick, the primary sponsor of a bill aimed at prohibiting right on red near schools, parks, and certain locations, emphasized the importance of prioritizing safety.
He stated that if he were in the position of crossing an intersection, he would want measures in place to protect pedestrians and cyclists.
Although Lovick’s bill did not advance beyond the committee stage, the city of Seattle implemented a policy this year that prohibits right on red by default when new traffic signals are installed. This decision reflects the growing concern for pedestrian and cyclist safety.
Melinda Kasraie, who testified in support of Lovick’s bill, shared her personal experience of being struck by a car making a right turn on red in Seattle.
The incident resulted in the need for a total knee replacement, forced her to leave her job of 20 years, and even influenced her decision to move to a smaller town due to her heightened fears of crossing the street.
Her testimony highlights the significant impact that a seemingly minor delay in waiting for a green light can have on an individual’s life.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding right-on-red policies continues to be fueled by conflicting research and personal experiences.
While some argue that the current data is outdated and may not accurately reflect the current risks, others emphasize the importance of prioritizing safety and minimizing the potential for accidents.
As cities like Seattle take steps to limit right on red, it remains to be seen how this issue will be addressed on a broader scale.