• conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 year ago

    God, the alt-right messaging network are desperate to find some messaging to fight urbanism on. In my experience, good urban design is an issue that really resonates with people across the spectrum in the US. That’s why they tried to spin the 15-minute city conspiracy. The sad thing is that I know they’re eventually going to find one that sticks.

  • FnordPrefect [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    the trans of traffic

    A group promoting change that will have life-saving impacts for a vulnerable community, and positive effects for society as a whole, being thwarted because reactionary dipshits can’t bear the thought that saving others’ lives is a worthy trade for a vanishingly small change for themselves? I guess so…

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      tbh if your commute is so fucking tight that you can’t spare a few extra seconds at a stop light, something is wrong.

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right on red keeps traffic moving,

          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

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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!

      • averagedrunk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • buckykat [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • averagedrunk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

          • Helmic [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Badly designed roads, badly designed traffic systems, badly designed everything means it’s pretty much the only reason anything can move here. Idk how the traffic system would even function without right on red. Or, rather, it would fail to function even more than it already does. Fuck this country.

        • Helmic [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          inconsistent traffic laws make you safer by keeping you on your toes

          in practice we just have “no right on red” signs or specific right turn signals at intersections where it would be problematic. out where everything is so spread out there isn’t any pedestrian traffic and bikes act like vehicles (and so are not alllowed to cut past cars on their right where they are liable to get hit).

          as typical, american imagination about change is based on the assumption there will be no infrastructure to support it. no turn on red wouldn’t make sense as a blanket rule given current infrastructure due to a lack of bike or pedestrian infrastructure to take advantage of it and the obvious congestion problems that come from cars idling at a traffic light. actually create that infrastructure and the time lost to needing to sit at a red light so non car traffic can cross safely will be less than the time saved due to there being fewer cars on the road to begin with. imagine if the light wasn’t red to begin with because there weren’t other cars. imagine not having to drive at all.

          • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            creating pedestrian and cycling infrastructure while not abolishing right on reds is like a few steps removed from just randomly killing people

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Apparently there are but I’ve never encountered one. Plus traffic laws in the US are very vibe-based. It’s more of a set of cultural norms than actual rules. You do what everyone else does, regardless of the law, or you get hit by another vehicle.

    • WoofWoof91 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      iirc most states(?) allow a right turn on a red light as it doesn’t involve disturbing the flow of traffic too much
      i still think it’s bad to be clear, but i think that’s the reasoning

  • AernaLingus [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    I remember when I was first learning how to drive and was driving with an instructor…almost plowed into some people in a crosswalk while attempting to turn right on red (instructor saw it coming and used the instructor brake pedal before I even initiated the turn). Scared me shitless, and you best believe I learned my lesson.

    But this is an easily predictable outcome. You’ve got a situation where the person turning right is going to be looking 180° in the opposite direction to the pedestrians/cyclists crossing to their right because the driver doesn’t want someone to plow into them. Completely stupid thing to allow, especially in cities.