No right on red used to be the standard for the east coast until the 1970s gas crisis. Like the 55mph speed limit, allowing a right turn on red was a measure intended to help save people on fuel.

I think that they ignored that by allowing cars to turn right on red, you made being a pedestrian a lot less safe, which encourages more people to drive instead of walk, and you may have ended up wasting more fuel than you save.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 20, 2008 6:07 pm • link • report

Right turn on red is a HUGE problem in traffic circles, and signs prohibiting it don't help. I go through a traffic circle on a regular basis, and the cars turn on red when the sign says explicitly "turn on Green only". I normally have to approach this crossing assuming that the cars will either:

a. simply not stop

b. will kinda slow down before they turn

c. stop, waive me across (as if I didn't have the ROW), and then look dumbfounded as I yell at them for subsequently turning on red

The city would make a TON of money if they installed red light cameras at these intersections. So long as drivers are just too stupid and have too high a sense of entitlement to follow the rule, we might as well tax them for their stupiditiy and sense of entitlement.

by Reid on Jun 20, 2008 6:19 pm • link • report

You could always put up the handy "NO TURN ON RED when pedestrians present" sign. It doesn't change the law in those cases but it sure make drivers stop and read the sign. If you place enough actual no turn on reds throughout the city along with a good number of these signs, it should probably have an impact.

by Marip on Jun 20, 2008 6:24 pm • link • report

One other thing, specifically in relation to 15th street and other wide streets, modifying the signals would not address the safety of pedestrians crossing outside of signalized intersections or signalized crosswalks. And while adding more signalized crosswalks would reduce the number of people crossing without using such crosswalks, you can never eliminate the behavior (short of doing things like putting up barriers in the middle of the street so that they have no choice)

by Mario on Jun 20, 2008 6:34 pm • link • report

@Marip: That sign doesn't work. According to a study done in 2001 in Arlington County, the sign you described was compared to no change (control group), and "No Turn on Red (7am to 7pm)".

The study, "Field Evaluation of Two Methods for Restricting Right Turn on Red to Promote Pedestrian Safety", Retting et al., Institute for Transportation Engineers, January 2002, showed that there was little statistically significant change in driver behavior based on the sign you describe. According to the paper, "Signs giving drivers discretion to turn right on red based on whether pedestrians are present were not very effective." I'll note that for the study of over 1300 vehicles, the number of drivers turning right on red without stopping went from 27 percent to 34 percent after installing such a sign. This compared to a decrease from 29 to 12 percent for the time-limited sign, and an increase from 38 to 51 percent for the control.

Conclusion: "No right turn on Red 7am to 7pm" works, the sign you described does not. What works even better should be the red arrow, but I don't have a paper to cite.

I've fought Arlington County for about a year to remove such a sign from the corner of Washington Blvd and Sycamore Street, a block north of the East Falls Church metro station. I gave up last year. I think the corner might have been one of the study locations, actually.

The only action I've been able to get out of them is for the police to come out once a month and write a ton of tickets. I think that should show the County that the sign doesn't work, but they claim they need to allow some RTOR because of traffic demand.

I have a copy of the paper if anyone is interested. I can scan it and provide a PDF. Email me at mperkins (at) engineer (dot) com.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 20, 2008 7:06 pm • link • report

The 2003 version of the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices did not adopt the use of the "When pedestrians are present" modifier, according to this presentation:

The link

by Michael Perkins on Jun 20, 2008 7:14 pm • link • report

I dont get why we just dont have no turns on red period, one way, two way left or right it doesnt matter. You can put as many signs as you can buy up and no one will pay attention until you have police or parking enforcement go after people who dont follow the laws plain and simple.

by kk on Jun 20, 2008 9:07 pm • link • report

A year or so ago, Michael King of Nelson\Nygaard Associates gave an amazing talk about making streets safe for pedestrians, among other things, at a public forum organized by the Coalition for Smarter Growth. He addressed the right-on-red issue, mentioning that:

1. The evidence for emissions reductions just isn't there.

2. As many as 15% of cars don't stop before turning, and 42% use a rolling stop.

3. A general principle of traffic theory is that if you turn, you yield: straight-moving traffic has the right of way over turning traffic. But in right-on-red situations, pedestrians often have to wait for the turning cars, when in fact they should have the right of way.

4. Visually impared pedestrians can't use aural clues to decide when to cross.

5. A right-turning vehicle will often pull into and block the crosswalk, and the driver will be looking left, at oncoming traffic, and not at the pedestrians he might be blocking.

by thm on Jun 20, 2008 9:47 pm • link • report

D.C. used to be 100% no right turn on red -- that was the law throughout the entire city. The 1975 federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act mandated uniform treatment in all states; DC was one of the last holdouts but finally converted in 1979 (to the best of my recollection).

In order to change back to something like Wells' proposal, we'd have to change the federal law.

The Bay Area Metro Transportation Commission has a comprehensive ped and bike safety engineering toolbox.

Tuscon DOT has a useful page on ped/bike traffic signals. And boy do they need 'em.

by Laurence Aurbach on Jun 20, 2008 9:57 pm • link • report

Yes, DC and Connecticut (my home state) were the last holdouts. I can't tell you how many times I got beeped at in Virginia when I'd stop and sit at a light because I'd forgotten the rule was different there. Uniformity is a good thing for something like this.

Incidentally, because 'right on red' actually required the District to get someone to make the decision to put a sign up and THEN actually get someone to install the sign, I think I remember seeing one or two of them in all of the District ... Ditto in Connecticut.

by Lance on Jun 20, 2008 10:16 pm • link • report

New York City still has no right turn on red. How do they get around this federal law issue?

by David Alpert on Jun 20, 2008 10:56 pm • link • report

THM...that is the beauty of the Pedestrian signal on Morrison Street. Bringing all traffic to a stop in a high pedestrian area gives maximum protection to the walkers.

The signal has been, to my knowledge, 100% effective in preventing pedestrian injury or incidents. It is a variation on the highly successful HAWK signal cited in the Tuscon DOT toolbox.

Why DDOT isn't trumpeting this as a winning proposition is beyond me. This is a signal that should be used in all high-pedestrian areas where there is also heavy arterial traffic. Indeed, no one from DDOT was willing to comment on it at the hearings conducted by Jim Graham today.

Does that mean DDOT isn't committed to this kind of novel solution?

by Andrew on Jun 20, 2008 11:01 pm • link • report

Just a hunch -

The workable solution would be a signal with an explicit red right turn arrow that lights up only when a pedestrian presses the button, coupled with a red light camera. And *only* at high-pedestrian-traffic areas.

It is indeed a gas-saving measure, and 'no turn on red' is odious in that respect - the one on my street is an obsolete (since a bypass was put in) traffic calming measure, which is open for ten seconds every two minutes, in a zone where we get virtually no pedestrian traffic. Tens of gallons of gas a day are going into that light.

Diagonal-crossing four-way signals work, but there are probably less than ten intersections in the city that are that high traffic, and only at peak times. I'm thinking Silver Spring's Turf on a saturday night busy.

by Squalish on Jun 21, 2008 2:21 am • link • report

I wonder, though, how much of an issue turns on green are for pedestrian safety by comparison. After all, in most places pedestrians are given a walk signal when traffic going parallel to them on the street is given a green light. This means that there is a conflict between turning traffic (particularly right turning traffic or left turning traffic off one-way streets) and pedestrian traffic. This traffic potentially crosses the crosswalks at higher speeds than traffic turning right on red and they may have trouble seeing pedestrian and bicycle traffic that's originally going parallel to them and in the same direction (think of the case where you're walking down the sidewalk on the right side of a street and you cross another street while a car is turning right from the street whose sidewalk you were on onto the street you are crossing). In this particular case, the faster such pedestrian or bicycle traffic moves, the less likely, one would reason, that the car driver would see them. As such it would seem like a good idea perhaps study this issue and if it is a safety issue, to study possible solutions, such as requiring all turning traffic to stop before turning or having specific left and right turn signals that are set up not to conflict with the pedestrian signals. (As an aside, this also suggests that pedestrian might be safer walking on the left side of the street, though then left turning traffic might not see them so well).

Also speaking of left and right turn signals, perhaps they could use the red turn arrow for the "Barnes Dance", as someone else was saying.

by Mario on Jun 21, 2008 2:21 am • link • report

Re: the history of New York City's exemption, online references are scarce. Without digging through the microfilm, this is all I can find:

NYC at that time was for all intents bankrupt, and did not have the funds to put up all the NO TURN ON RED signs at 80 per cent of the city's signalized intersections that warranted the restrictions... IIRC signage would have cost 8 million dollars. The NY Congressional delegation argued uniformed city services would be cut in order to pay for the signage, and since a majority of NYC intersection approaches would prohibit RTOR, Congress gave NYC the exception. (Had NYC not been near bankruptcy, I doubt Congress would have agreed to the exemption, BTW).

by Laurence Aurbach on Jun 21, 2008 3:48 pm • link • report

that's an interesting history and example of uninteded consequences 30 years hence, in this case positive unintended consequences in the sense that the pedestrian safety has been built upon with a continiuty of design/traffic rules. Thus the drivers are accustomed to stopping for pedestrians. or is that a conclusion that can not be asserted regarding ped safety in nyc? If traffic rules are changed, like ntor/ror, how long does it take the population of drivers to respond?

I was thinking of this behavioral change that is required from auto drivers regarding bike lanes. A poster had stated that bike lanes create a false sense of security in the bike rider. I think the bike lanes are there to condition auto drivers to be aware there are bikes on the road. the lanes encourage a behavior in drivers just as ntor/ror.

by Bianchi on Jun 21, 2008 6:53 pm • link • report

"What works even better should be the red arrow, but I don't have a paper to cite"

Those don't work for traffic circles. Trust Me. They still treat it as a red light, i.e. RTOR is allowed.

I agree that they probably work pretty well for four-way intersections.

by reid on Jun 21, 2008 11:35 pm • link • report

Since I've moved into the city I walk most of time and drive rather infrequently. I just don't share this sentiment that being a pedestrian is so unsafe around here and we need to make alot of wholesale changes like installing these Barnes Dance things.

I'm not sure why I have such a different experience than you each claim seem to have. I mostly walk Penn Quarter, Chinatown and the Mount Vernon Triangle. I suppose these areas don't have the traffic circles that can be troublesome. But I've never have the least bit danger from cars while walking around my hood. Then again, I cross at the crosswalks, generally wait for the cross signals, and only jaywalk if there is no oncoming traffic.

On the flip side, when I drive in these same areas I've been subjected to peril from pedestrians with frequency. Certain people seem to think that you can jaywalk at anytime and anywhere. They don't just jaywalk when cars aren't present or at a safe distance. They seem to think that as long begin to cross earlier enough for oncoming traffic to see them that's all that is required. They will then cross diagonally and very leisurely to ensure they stay in the road as long as possible. In some cases I've seen pedestrians jump out to jaywalk as my car approached when there was no traffic behind me and they could have merely waited 3 or 4 seconds for me to pass then they would have had all day to cross. I don't get it...

by Cascades on Jun 22, 2008 2:21 am • link • report

Cascades: at the hearing, the representative from the car-lobbying AAA even testified that the two biggest types of road injuries and deaths were cars hitting pedestrians and motorcyclists not wearing helmets. And they believe in reducing both types. Perceived danger may not be a deterrent to you enjoying the city but it is for many people.

DC isn't especially dangerous. But we've spent 50 years engineering our road network for cars and to keep pedestrians bottled up in small spaces. Early in the car's history, streets were seen as places for everyone, where children played and people walked and vehicles moved (more slowly and safely). Even the term "jaywalk" rose to change public opinion and kick everyone else off the streets.

One principle you're always going to find from me on this blog is that we need to rethink the way we allocate public space between vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes to, as Wells put it, "upgrade the rights of pedestrians" and bicyclists.

by David Alpert on Jun 22, 2008 8:55 am • link • report

Go to 15th Street and take a walk around sunset. Weekends are the best. Forget your blackberry and notions of the investor class and creative class, and just be. Soak in the atmosphere. It is like the Garden District and the French Quarter before Katrina.

It is quiet and calm, and so you can stroll and appreciate the incredible accomplishments of many homeowners who have provided us with astonishing beauty of their gardens. It is quite simply a gem of a street, unparalleled in charm for a major street. Go now, before it disappears.

There are long periods of time when there are no cars. The other pedestrians, somehow aware of the specialness of this place, conduct themselves well. There are none of the shenanigans or hurry and hustle of 16th Street or 14th Street. No one honks their horns, no one screeches, and that I could see, no one really speeds.

if I had been in Washington, only one, two or three years, I am sure I would not be able to notice the differences between 15th and other streets, to feel them in my bones, and notice the sense of calm I get walking up and down this fine street.

15th Street is calm and civilized. Even if you disagree with me, go. Now. Enjoy.

by Mickey on Jun 22, 2008 10:20 am • link • report

Mickey,

Yes, 15th Street is at many times as you suggest. However, this serenity gets interrupted whenever the occasional speeder comes down "the track" ... and there are more than a few of them as the evening rush hour winds its way through the late afternoon and early evening.

Had other "car culture" traffic planning efforts not been reversed or aborted, such as the recent traffic calming efforts along 15th Street north of Florida in Ward 1, or the '70s blocking of the construction of the Inner-Beltway freeway that was to have been built along top of U Street and down Florida to Rock Creek, 15th Street would today have more than the sporadic speeders going down it. It would be the major highway for which it was redesigned in its current incarnation.

The street wasn't always it is is now. It was widened and made one way at some point as a part of the highwayficaton plans for Washington that finally got derailed in the '70s. The houses lining it once had deep sloping yards, and the narrower two-way street had wide sidewalks for people to better enjoy the nicer front yard gardens.

Yes, people have gotten used to it being "just like it is", but that's not a reason for not trying to improve it.

You are assuming that quiet and calm would cease to exist if any changes were made to the street. I think the opposite can be true ... as long as we are mindful as to what changes are made. All changes should be made with the end game goal being to restore this street to being the kind of neighborhood street it was before it got swept up into the grand plans for the Inner-Beltway and what at the time people assumed would become a highrise downtown ... with all the rowhouses and early 20th century apartment buildings razed.

I don't know if just returning the street to two-way traffic alone will do this, but its worth looking at. I only hope we don't focus too narrowly on the two-way traffic aspects (and/or the bike lane aspects) of the project as the bigger question to be looked at is "How do we return this street to the residential use it enjoyed before it got changed to accommodate a freeway that never got constructed and a highrise downtown neighborhood that subsequently never materialized?" As it stands, it's clearly a hole in the center of the inner-city, Victorian neighborhoods of Dupont and Shaw/Logan. Something needs to be done.

by Lance on Jun 22, 2008 1:05 pm • link • report

I agree with so much of what you have said. But though I’ve been here 20 years, I don’t know about the history either way.

Can’t it be, though, that there are unintended consequences that are actually good? I refer to my post above. 15th street is just a lovely experience - far far more so than 14th or 16th - on the weekend evenings. And couldn’t one of the consequences of the planning of making it one way be that at certain times it is truly a fantastic place? Just because something was planned without the integrity you so crave does not mean that everything that came of it is wrong. To me, there are much graver and more glaring problems facing pedestrians to fix.

Now, as to your thinking that making it two-way will not increase traffic. I just do not see how this is so. Again, take a weekend late afternoon. Very few cars are coming north from downtown, but many more would be love to go south, downtown, if they could. Not to mention the weekday mornings. Forget about it! There are school kids around there.

Anyway, sometimes I feel like we are just talking about two different places. To me, the way it is now is great. Maybe not perfect. Sure, take away a lane, increase the space of the sidewalks. Great! But for me, the way it is now, it just could not get any calmer.

by Mickey on Jun 22, 2008 4:56 pm • link • report

Mickey, I think you are talking about someplace else. I live on 15th street and have for many years now. Sure, it's great on weekends, but 16th and 14th are quite nice as well.

When you started your original comment with "take a walk at sunset" I thought you were going to write the exact opposite of what you did. 15th is a madhouse at sunset every single weekday. People scream and honk at anyone who slows down to turn or park, people treat the left lane as if it is a passing lane on 95, red lights are consistently run, and the 30mph speed limit is a joke.

Here's an interesting experiment for your evening stroll. Walk along the west side of 15th and take note of the northwest corner of every single street or alley where drivers may turn left. There is damage to every one from cars unable to make the turn due to excessive speed. You'll see rudimentary repairs to the fences in people's yards on the corner of Corcran, R (streetlight taken out), S, and several alleys in between. They don't call it an "urban freeway" for nothing.

by Mike on Jun 23, 2008 12:42 pm • link • report

Ok, will try to notice next time I am there. I also see bad damage to brick walls in Adams Morgan in alleyways.

I used to walk home from work at Massachusetts every evening, and I found those walks to be just as pleasant as my "weekend stroll" this past weekend. I don't live down there, if I did, maybe I'd be just as incensed as you are. No doubt. Again, calm the traffic, sure. Take out a lane. Take out two! Make the sidewalks wider. Hear hear! But if you make it two lanes, traffic will be worse.

by Mickey on Jun 23, 2008 12:53 pm • link • report

My initial reaction to the proposals was actually the same as yours. i thought, "why add a morning rush problem to the evening rush problem?" As I've thought about it more, I'm not sure the premise that two-lanes will add to traffic is correct. The thing is, there's not much incentive to enter 15th street southbound if it's 2-way.

Think about it. 15th is one-way northbound above W and that can't be changed, so the only way to get on southbound is to come down 16th or 14th (or something further out where you cross 14th or 16th), turn onto U street, and then turn again onto 15th. Why would you do that? Both 14th and 16th have two southbound lanes in the morning and can get you further without additional turns. Both of the contenders for 2-way for 15th only have one southbound lane and you can only go as far as K street. I suspect southbound traffic would be pretty much limited to local traffic.

But, hey, if we're willing to put taking 2 lanes away, giving me some yard back, and widening sidewalks - sign me up!

by Mike on Jun 23, 2008 7:38 pm • link • report

By way of update, DDOT Director Moneme announced that DDOT would be scrapping the pedestrian signal in Chevy Chase for a traditional red-yellow-green light. This despite a 100% record of pedestrian safety at the intersection and despite extensive lip service from the Mayor and DDOT about pedestrian safety.

The reason claimed by the Director was the number of "near misses" at the intersection. Don't all intersections have near misses? What made this one unique was that thankfully at this one, no one ever got injured.

This will make three traditional signals within 650 feet on Connecticut Avenue. What will that do for traffic flow?

by Andrew on Jun 24, 2008 11:16 am • link • report

All very interesting. I am still not convinced. There will be traffic lights added, probably. Cars will remain in the area longer, drivers will be more impatient. Well, those are my predictions anyway. I think it will be visually worse, and will create a more tense feel to the place. They might even be required to cut down some trees.

by Mickey on Jun 24, 2008 1:50 pm • link • report

It is no secret that the volume of pedestrian accidents is alarming. There are no arguments that something must be done to stop sending people to their graves regardless of their age or status. Steps must urgently be taken to reduce this annual fiasco of over 6,000 mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends and relatives who's lives are being snuffed out each year thus leaving family and friends grieving, As well as more then 15,000 severely wounded, never to recover. The question is can that frightening predicament be solved? The answer is 90 percent of these calamity's can be avoided. Many accidents earns unjustified the term "accident" but should rather be called homicide. A substantial amount of accidents can be credited to bad traffic laws. As a driver for 10 years who is constantly on the road, and as a "safety" activist who wrote many articles in various newspapers regarding "safety" matters, I would like to share my opinions. I strongly urge everyone who has the authority, to help enforce my suggestions, thus saving countless lives.

One of the most crimes on our world is the fact that a pedestrian has no right to cross the street. The sign may say walk, but a vehicle comes speeding from the other street and turns in. it won't be exaggerated to say, that, (in smaller streets) it is safer to cross in the middle of the street then by the corner. By the corner you have no control whatsoever what is going on in the other street. The law is very dry. "If the pedestrian is on the road the vehicle must stop", but parked vehicles are blocking the whew, and the only time the driver of that vehicle gets to know that he must stop is only when he gets to the intersection and he sees the pedestrian. Should a law like this be a called, "a protection for pedestrians?" that a driver who runs a 3,000 pound of metal and plastic at a speed of 25 M.P.O. should be told to stop at a range on 10 – 20 ft. (only by bigger avenues, the light will be red for both sides of the street while pedestrians are crossing.) I am shocked to see on the internet one accident after the other from vehicles that turned into a street and knocked down a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The driver claimed that the pedestrian wasn't in the middle of the road when he arrived at the intersection, and the pedestrian is dead and doesn't say anything, and the joke goes on. What it's worrisome, is the fact that even if the driver of the turning vehicle is careful, hazards will remain. Consider that one. Here is a two-way street and a driver wants to make a left turn, so he waits for a gape in the lane of the opposite direction. Traffic is busy and let the anxious driver wait for a while thus holding up a huge line of cars (and many times there horn honking is like a big orchestra) who are making his nerves dissolving. Finely some gape is created. The anxious driver accelerates franticly and makes his turn. In the same time a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. What is going to happen? Will signs on the street urging drivers to "stop for pedestrians" prevent anything? I myself had recently such awful story when I once made a left turn from a two-way street. I always use extra caution so I still managed to stop, but many drivers would already hit the two girls who were on there way home from school.

The concern is even further, people feel that they are not safe in the crosswalk, so they end up jaywalking which decreases safety and increases accidents. We must make crosswalks really safe so a responsible lady or gentlemen have a choice to cross the street safely.

There are some laws, that, although they are vital, they are never heeded by drivers. As a school bus driver, I always look at other school buses as they pull out of a parking by the school and must back up, that they aren't going to the back of the bus to see if somebody is behind. The law in the book is very firm not to back without doing this procedure. In the mid of December '08, a lady was crushed to dead because of that. One most not be very smart to understand that backing a large vehicle while relying just on the side-whew mirrors is like driving half blind. You never know what's behind you. It is not school buses who commit this crime, from all of the many thousands larger vehicles who fill the streets in New York, you won't found even 1 percent who will go out to make sure nobody is behind. The question is why the law is not issuing tickets to such violators. The only thing which scares drivers, is, tickets. People who got killed don't matter. Yung kids, who will be left in a coma for their entire life, won't make people change their driving habit, the silly 150$ will do it, it seems that this vital rule (to walk to the back before reversing) is just a mere recommendation.

Most laws which are written in the driver's manual are essential for "safety". These laws are supposed to refrain those fast moving heavy pieces of metal and plastic, from destruct whatever comes in their way. Hence it is no question regarding the necessity of traffic laws, what needs to be challenged, is, the enforcement of these regulations. I see all kinds of violations not on daily bases, but on minute bases. From passing school buses to, passing a street light. From entering a bike lain (to pass other vehicles) to backing out from one street to another. From being engrossed in a hand-cellphone Conversation, to riding at 40 M.P.O. in 20 M.P.O. zone. Why is all this happening? Perhaps, the law enforcement should be multiplied. A) It seems that it must be 5 times the amount of traffic officers, and maybe things will start to get in place. The money to finance that huge army can be driven from the ticket itself. (Plus penalty charges for not paying the ticket in time) I also suggest that instead of issuing so many parking tickets, moving violations should be the priority. The slightest moving violation is doing more harm then most of parking violations. B) Cameras should be installed at many intersections. C) False cameras which is not expensive should be seen everywhere, to scare reckless drivers.

Please read my suggestions about the subject written above, plus other safety points.

Crosswalks

1) Lights at intersections must give a minute for "safe pedestrian crossing". This means, that it must be red for vehicles of both sides of the street when the pedestrian has walk. (or should a law be passed that every vehicle must come to a full stop before turning regardless if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk or not.)

1-A) The time of pedestrian's right of way should be estimated by elder people. The sign should say walk as long as it takes an 80 year old men to cross that street.

2) In a crosswalk where it already happened an accident, a bump on the road should be build, sufficient enough to force vehicles physically to slow down. If several accidents occurred in the same crosswalk, the crosswalk should be removed from the intersection @ be placed in the middle of the street.

3) Wide crosswalks where people have to cross more then four lanes should have a 4 ft. wide platform in the middle.

4) A road without a sidewalk is a potential danger. In a residential area it shouldn’t be a road without sidewalk at least 4 ft. wide.

(Bumps on the road are extremely safety-friendly, and should always be considered and encroached in residential places.)

5) Many motorists are waiting at red lights in the crosswalk. a substantional amount of motorists don’t acknowledge the crosswalk as a place designated exclusively for pedestrians. I suggest to ticket such drivers.

School bus safety

1) The laws regarding school bus safety must be reconsidered. Too many drivers are passing school buses. The law of “stopping for a school bus with the lights on,” is containing some unnecessary abuse to the traffic which causes to reduce the respect towered school buses. For example, to keep up a whole line of cars while loading-unloading an entire bus with dozens of children when they don’t have to cross the street will only make matters worse. (However, this must be considered carefully. I had plenty times that kids have darted out in the gutter which wasn’t a pleasant experienced.)

2) If the child is waiting on the opposite side of the street (the child will have to cross the street), then the bus should position in an angel to block the street before picking up or letting down. To rely upon the red fleshers means jeopardizing the life of the child! Cars keep on passing school buses with the red fleshers on, willingly or while being distracted. Only the frame of the bus will protect the children.

3) Never should a driver stay at a bus stop with his lights off. When a child sees the bus, he/she will come running. A driver shouldn’t think he had trained the children not to come before signaling. If he is running early, he should pull aside 100 ft. before the stop and wait for the exact time. Staying at a stop with the lights off is a mortal danger. It’s the worst mistake a school bus driver can make.

4) Many motorists would stop for school buses but cant withstood the honking horns from cars behind. Honking a horn on a driver who stops for a school bus is the same sin as passing, and should be handled so.

5) A bus driver can't show for cars to pass. The child interoperates it as a signal to come. It also takes away the authority of police officers. Many times when a police officer tickets someone for passing a school bus the passer claims that the bus driver signaled him to pass. The bus driver who knows the passer and don’t want to buy an enemy will agree to the arbitration. I personally know several of such incidents. The law which permits for drivers to signal for cars to pass is a mistake.

6) Every bus must be equipped with a stop arm. It will reduce the number of violators to half.

7) As of now, the law doesn’t require from school buses to have a stop arm. Many drivers that are passing school buses are just distracted. A stop arm reduces school-bus-passers, and should therefore be a must.

8) Power doors are not safe in school buses. The bus driver must have the option to open the stop arm (to stop oncoming vehicles) without opening the door, which will cause the children to come before the traffic is stopped. (As of now, drivers are trying to stop traffic with the yellow flashers, but that only causes the opposite. Cars are speeding up to still-make it before the stop arm opens up. Many kids were killed when they dart out in the gutter on their way to the bus, and the stop arm wasn't open. I had two bad near-accidents where the child almost got killed. I had my lesson. I always release the latch of the door before I come to a full stop, [you can't do that with power doors] so the arm comes out. By the time the child sees the bus stopped, traffic is stopped to. [I also position the bus in an angel to block traffic physically. It may not comply with the law, but it surely complies with those kids who got killed by cars that passed the school bus wile they were getting on-of the bus.])

Other safety tips

1) Tinted windows don't add to safety. Whenever a man puts his feet on the gutter, he must know if the driver seat (of the parked vehicle he must go in front [or behind]) is occupied. I myself had 5 cases where I let down children from my bus, and all of a sudden the vehicle in front started to back. One time he stopped just when he was about to hit the child. I always try to look inside the vehicle the kids will have to go behind, but the windows that were tinted like paint, denied any view.

2) As of now, a motorist who kills a person while driving reckless, will get a tiket... The biggest crime in the universe is driving reckless, This is truly homicide. A driver who is submitting to he's anxiousness and does reckless things while maneuvering he's 2-3 thousand pound of metal and plastic, is a far more danger to the universe then a man who robes a bank. It is an earthshaking transgression, that one can kill innocent people while committing a reckless act, and will be punished with a 150$ fine. Will g-od forgive us for that? A law of making the committing a reckless act, equivalence to pulling a trigger of a gun, must be passed.

3) As mentioned above, there are laws that are written in the driving manual, but violators are not subject to tickets if they violate it. I require enforcing all those laws in a way that drivers should be ticketed for violating them.

4) A law should be passed, that no vehicle is allowed to park double 50 ft. close to a crosswalk. Double parked vehicles, block the sight of pedestrians from seeing oncoming traffic, as well as the sight of oncoming traffic from seeing crossing pedestrians. (You can always see delivery trucks that salve the parking problem by parking in the crosswalk, thus blocking entirely the way for pedestrians. Where are the ticket writers? They are not to be found. You will only find them by street cleaning violations, not by things regarding safety.)

5) The new technology of vehicle who ride very silent (older vehicles’ are more nosy), cause people not to hear the sound of a backing vehicle. A law should be past that every vehicle regardless of the size, most have an installed backing-alarm.

6) Every driver must take a 6 our "pedestrian safety" class each and every year. The lessons should contain all sorts of hazards involving pedestrians. The class should be fallowed by a written test.

7) Police officers who fight crimes aren't sufficient enough to fight traffic violations. A special unit, made out of a huge army of trained official's who's only task should be traffic crimes, will do the job. The finance source can be the money that the tickets will bring in.

9) When you go to wallmart, you will see people who think they are driving in an open highway. A parking lot must be equipped with bumps at every 100 ft.

10) The maximum speed limit in the U.S. and perhaps in the world is 65 M.P.O., why should vehicles be build to a maximum riding of over 100 M.P.O.? Emergency vehicles should need special permission for additional speed capacity.

10-A) Vehicles shouldn’t have the capacity of backing more them 1 mile per our. Backing is always dangerous; let that hazard be reduced to a minimum.

11) Those racing cars as corvette, e.t.s., belong in a racing car field. Why should vehicles have the capacity of rising from zero to 60 M.P.O. in 6 seconds? A pedestrian can be in the middle of the street and suddenly an excited youngster who just got his new toy wants to get the full satisfaction of his investment, and presses down on the gas. The poor pedestrian is running back to the sidewalk and gets killed by an other vehicle. The happy youngster doesn’t have the time to attend to the victim and zooms off….

12) Many sanitation truck drivers are extremely reckless. They feel as tough they are protected because they are working for the city. No police officer wants to ticket them and they just do what ever they want. Passing lights - passing school buses - making u turns in a crosswalk while the light is red. (Is the best time to do it, Cars are stopped….) - in a small street they will turn in, in the wrong direction to be able to get to the next street without having to circle the street. Talking on a hand sel. While backing fast. Sanitation drivers must be educated on safe driving.

13) Cameras should be installed at intersections in substantial amounts. The money should be funded from the tickets.

14) In the winter, all vehicles must be equipped with snow tires. (All year tires are not really effective. Only snow tires will do the job.

15) Every car has a feature that locks the wheels unless the key is in the ignition. It's ironic that a school bus which always has children on board lays free for every vicious child to release the parking brakes and to let this 25,000 lb. bus rolling freely. A law of installing this brake-lock feature on new @ older buses should be passed

Laws for pedestrians

1) Every pedestrian must wear a reflector from 8 a clock at night.

2) Crossing the street wile talking on a hand sel. Is the same hazard (for him and for the husband of his wife @ the father of his children. [In many cases they also endanger the motorists who try to avoid them]) as driving with a hand sel. And should be treated the same.

3) Once crosswalks will be safe, it will be justified to force people to use it.

The efficiency of the current system of crosswalks we had already seen. A number that ranges between 5 @ 6 thousand fatalities and approximate 70,000 wounded per year is far more then a waking call to look for a different solution. If it will be hard to bring fort all the recommendations mentioned above, at least let's start to steer in that direction.

by Lorimer on Feb 11, 2009 1:14 pm • link • report