Posted on 09/27/2023 7:09:05 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
San Francisco Supervisor Dean Preston wants the city to ban right turns on red, and on Tuesday introduced a resolution that would urge the city's transportation department to do so.
Why it matters: Turn-on-red crashes have proved dangerous, accounting for 20% of pedestrian- or bicycle-related injury crashes involving drivers turning at signal-based intersections, according to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.
What's happening: If the Board of Supervisors adopts the resolution, it would function as its official stance on the topic, but the decision ultimately rests with the SFMTA board of directors.
Context: An SFMTA analysis last year found the number of close calls between vehicles and pedestrians decreased following the 2021 implementation of no-turn-on-red at more than 50 intersections in the Tenderloin, which is part of Preston's district.
(Excerpt) Read more at axios.com ...
OR they could make bicyclists obey the traffic laws, and line up behind cars, wait for the light or WALK across sidewalks.
OK, the progs can’t cross the road?
I know they are stupid but damn!
.
Can’t get away from the carjackers
Probably mostly “drug zombie” pedestrians...penalize the drivers/workers for out of control policies of the supervisors. Typical.
Whatta ‘bout right turns over poop?
Left turns in general?
They have a thing called a sign, which can be put up at intersections where right turn on red is dangerous. The vast majority of intersections are safe for it.
Due to the collapse of law and order in San Francisco. That said, are they going to enforce infractions against drivers?
But then motorists won’t be able to pull up to an intersection and wonder “Did that sign I just passed say No Turn On Red” and then be forced to decide whether to stay or go.
Is a turn/no turn on a red in SF going to make a difference? If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
“OR they could make bicyclists obey the traffic laws...”
Better yet, get them off the streets, at least for people who have other options for transportation.
If I recall it was the ‘feds’ that forced all the states to adopt the right turn on red back decades ago. Right on red of lose your fed road monies.
stand by for a 5% slowdown in traffic
The truth is, people no longer know how to safely drive in California. And that goes triple for any of the illegals. Being said, I can understand this being a really dangerous problem when people don’t know when they’re supposed to yield and don’t care anyway.
Yes! All the problems in San Francisco and this is the solution-No right turns on red-San Francisco is saved!
Since they are driving a car in SF is is assumed that they still have some money left, making them a big fat target for prog taxes, fines, fees, licenses, tolls, etc.
.
Hey,stupid!
You’ve got a hell of a lot of worries instead of right turns. In fact your decaying city needs a RIGHT turn NOW.
You win.. In the United States, western states have allowed it for a while and eastern states amended their traffic laws to allow it in the 1970s as a claimed fuel-saving measure in response to motor fuel shortages in 1973. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 required in §362(c)(5) that in order for a state to receive federal assistance in developing mandated conservation programs, they must permit right turns on red lights.
I guess if they can change the traffic codes they can keep their phony-balony jobs longer. Harumph!
Yuo can rob stores blind- steal under a $1000 per robbery and not be chased- but boy howdy- don’t ya dare turn right on red!!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.