this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
405 points (95.5% liked)

News

23275 readers
3788 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
405
U.S. cities consider banning "right on red" laws amid rise in pedestrian deaths (www.cbsnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sophee Langerman was on her way to a bicycle safety rally in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood in June when a car turning right rolled through a red light and slammed into her bike, which she was walking off the curb and into the crosswalk.

The car was moving slowly enough that Langerman escaped serious injury, but the bicycle required extensive repairs. To Langerman, it's another argument for ending a practice that almost all U.S. cities have embraced for decades: the legal prerogative for a driver to turn right after stopping at a red light.

A dramatic rise in accidents killing or injuring pedestrians and bicyclists has led to a myriad of policy and infrastructure changes, but moves to ban right on red have drawn some of the most intense sentiments on both sides.

Washington, D.C.'s City Council last year approved a right-on-red ban that takes effect in 2025. New Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson's transition plan called for "restricting right turns on red," but his administration hasn't provided specifics. The college town of Ann Arbor, Michigan, now prohibits right turns at red lights in the downtown area.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Poor mobility for cars also translates to increased cost of living.

Nope, that's backwards. Poor mobility for cars comes from higher-density development, which is also efficient development because you don't have to spend huge amounts of money building parking. Getting rid of the cars is the thing that lowers the costs!

Futhermore, getting rid of the cars is also the thing that enables walking/biking/transit to be viable (because there's physically less distance to cover, since you don't have to cross a wasteland of pavement), which also lowers cost of living.

The bottom line is that if you build to accommodate cars, you will never have walkability. It's geometrically impossible.

When you reduce the throughput of those areas, traffic gets distributed onto more roads. The result is that cyclists and pedestrians are less able to avoid cars with strategic route planning.

Distributing traffic onto more (uniformly-slow) streets means that cyclists and pedestrians have less need to avoid cars with strategic route planning because slow-moving cars aren't nearly as much of a danger to begin with.

[–] nBodyProblem@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you actually read anything I have written?

The point is that simply lowering speed limits as the primary lever to improve quality of life isn’t useful. It does nothing to reallocate that space in a beneficial way.

I’m literally arguing in favor of reducing space for cars for more pedestrian, cycling and transit infrastructure

The bottom line is that if you build to accommodate cars, you will never have walkability. It's geometrically impossible.

Guess what? The city is already built. I agree with you.

The question is how to move forward and slapping lower speed limits on everything isn’t the solution. You need to actually spend money on revamping the infrastructure so there are meaningful alternatives. Try to read more and jump to conclusions less.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I’m literally arguing in favor of reducing space for cars for more pedestrian, cycling and transit infrastructure

You're literally arguing for going about it ass-backwards in a way doomed to failure, which is a disingenuous, passive-aggressive way of opposing it.

You need to actually spend money on revamping the infrastructure so there are meaningful alternatives.

In order to actually spend money on bike/ped/transit, the politicians have to allocate it for that purpose. That doesn't happen unless the public is made to hate driving first!