Comment by throwway120385

Also, while technically a right on red should require one to come to a full stop, then start their turn, in practice many people are doing rights on red at rolling stops at significantly higher speeds.

This seems to not actually be the case in my experience, because right-turn drivers love to look to the left while turning right, because they are afraid of a fast-moving car appearing from the left, but they think they already verified that no slow-moving peds are crossing on the right.

The big problem with right on red is that it perfectly synchronizes them to hit each other.

Say a driver and pedestrian are at the same corner facing the same way and the pedestrian wants to cross into the area the driver wants to turn. The street is busy so the driver can't turn right on the red and the pedestrian isn't gonna just walk against the signal into the traffic. Cross traffic lets up, either because of a big gap or because the light has cycled to red for the cross traffic. The conditions that both parties require before making their move have just been satisfied at the same time. The pedestrian walks and the driver turns, leading to inevitable conflict. If both the driver and the pedestrian are in a hurry and trying to shoot a gap in traffic and go quickly there can be no time for either party to avoid the accident.

Edit: The above example is crosswalks only, no dedicated pedestrian signals.

A car turning on a green light can be simultaneous with the pedestrian's crossing light being green. The driver is obligated to see the pedestrian and wait.

What's not simultaneous is a green turn arrow with a green ped crossing. Intersections in the US are designed so that a green arrow will mean the driver has no conflicts and can proceed.

Not everyone (both drivers and peds) understands that distinction.

Yes: https://ibb.co/86tqnBM

Direct link: https://i.ibb.co/Hn36L27/Green-crossing.png

solid green (right turn allowed) + pedestrian green (for crossing).

car and ped both have access to ped crossing. (Car should yield to any ped in crossing.)

Also, I drew a picture before I realized that this wasn't what you were asking about. But I like the picture.

                C
                A
                R
                2
                |
                v

    ---------         -------- 
     CAR1 ->         
    ---------|ped ->  ------- 
             |       |
             |       |
             |       |          




                C
                A
                R
                2
    ---------         -------- 
                C          
    ---------|  pAed  ------- 
             |    R   |
             |    1   |
             |        |

Yes. This pattern is normal in the US.

While vehicles are traveling north and south, the walk sign for crossing north and south is available. But vehicles are typically allowed to turn in the same cycle, protected lefts with their own cycle are common. Some intersections have a dedicated arrow for right turns and those will signal no rights while a walk sign is on, but otherwise pedestrians and right turns conflict.

> Are you saying that a right-turn can be green simultaneous with the pedestrian's crossing light being green?

I can't think of many places that I drive where this isn't the case.

The pedestrian crossing lights are in sync with the traffic lights, if traffic going N/S is green then the pedestrian lights going N/S will also be green even if cars are turning E/W

I think a pretty large percentage of drivers don’t actually know that they’re supposed to yield to pedestrians when turning at lights.

I’ve had multiple close calls where the driver looks at me angrily, I point at the white ‘walk’ symbol, and then their anger turns to confusion. They had no idea that they’re supposed to wait.

If they get that close to me, the car is getting kicked or slapped to elicit a reaction from the driver.

If there is no way of configuring the intersection so that right on red is safe for pedestrians, then the problem is the right on red.

Not stopping before the pedestrian area is an instant ticket in my small town. They really promote walkability here. All of the issue listed seem to stem from lack of law enforcement. Our town also has bins at intersections with bright orange flags to increase your visibility as well as flashing 'pedestrian crossing' strobes initiated by button at problem location.

I just keep my turn signals off and wait for green (or a very obviously safe opening). Let them think that I want to go straight.

To be fair I've seen NYC _pedestrians_ yell at other pedestrians for walking wrong, NYC isn't exactly an outwardly friendly place in that respect.

That's part of what pedestrian scrambles so great: you always wait for the pedestrian phase before crossing. There is no pedestrian crossing in the car phase.

The other great benefit is you can cross the diagonal (kitty corner).

> I realised that when on a crosswalk drivers will come sailing at you and will cross behind you as you cross over. That is illegal here.

It's illegal in most if not all of USA too, but no one cares in practice. Legally, even when a car driver and a pedestrian both have access to a lane separately, if both are present, then a car driver must give a full lane-width of space to a pedestrian crossing or at the corner.

Also, even when a pedestrian is committing the auto-industry-invented crime of "jaywalking", the pedestrian still has the right of way in traffic, unless it is physically impossible for the car driver to avoid the collision. Car drivers are not judge/jury/executioner.

(Nit: "Cars" don't "drive" (yet, in most places). "Car drivers" drive cars.)

> The trade off is that the pedestrian has pretty much no right of way anywhere but a crossing, and cars will drive at you (or at least not stop for you) if you try to cross somewhere that is not a crossing.

That's not true, or at least it's bad/illegal driving if they do so, a pedestrian who is 'established in the road' as the right of way anywhere.

As you said:

> Though "Jaywalking" is not a thing and you can actually cross where ever you like.

Otherwise it would be a contradiction wouldn't it? If the pedestrians allowed to be there, the motorist obviously isn't allowed to run them over, ... I suppose you could say the pedestrian can continue crossing but only after first giving way to the motorist? There'd be more time with pedestrians in the road though.

Not that I recommend using that fact to cross when you don't have time, because you will anger motorists. Or they could not see you/be paying attention. They'd be wrong, but it's just not worth it, obviously.