Since you're so stuck on data regarding deaths and ignoring all other possible data I've yet to see you present any numbers in favour of right-on-red. How many lives has it saved?
Since you're so stuck on data regarding deaths and ignoring all other possible data I've yet to see you present any numbers in favour of right-on-red. How many lives has it saved?
I'm actually not in favour of right on red. I think we should ban it based on the fact that most drivers don't even consider it a stop now if they're turning right. But this irresponsible and tiresome rhetoric around death-defying walks because we allow right on red? That needs to stop.
Do you regularly walk to get around or do you usually drive? Do you consider a close call for a pedestrian to be concerning? How many people would need to die for you to consider the statistic worth mentioning? Like, a hard number.
And just to explain why I asked that last question: It seems weird that you are getting bent out of shape that "not enough" people have died due to an unsafe practice for you to consider it worth mentioning in the context of the unsafe practice being reviewed.
I'm only bent out of shape about irresponsible rhetoric around the issue. I don't want anyone to die. I do want us to stop pitting road users against each other. We're all just people, trying to get around.
Absolutely. Though I would say that it may feel like over the top rhetoric to someone like you who hasn't had any scary interactions at intersections. For those who have had close calls or been hit, those descriptors might feel pretty accurate.
How many people would need to die in a year for you to consider it appropriate to mention deaths caused by right-on-red, though? It's not a hard question.
I thought I answered above. I don't want anyone to die. So, the answer would be one.
Have you considered that the irresponsible rhetoric you’re taking about only exists inside your head? Nobody is pitting road users against each other here.
Read the article
I did