You may have heard about the idea of making it legal to make a left turn on red. Put in a more intelligible way, making it legal to turn left without having to wait for the green. Cue the keening.
Well, why?
More finely, why not? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with making a left (or right) turn when the way is clear to do so? Is it not ridiculous – in the sense that it is mindless (as well as wasteful of time and fuel) to sit waiting for a light to change color when the turn could be safely made?
Implicit in this is the assumption of driver competence. That he is able to see and competently judge time-distance relationships. If he is and can then he is capable of safely making a left or right turn without mindlessly waiting for a light to change color. The same goes for stopping completely – or not – at a stop sign. If the driver can see that there is no cross traffic then there is no good reason to come to a complete stop. It wastes time and fuel and also increases wear and tear on a vehicle’s brakes (and clutch, if it is equipped with a manual transmission). Mindless obedience is the only reason – and that’s never a good reason, because it encourages mindlessness rather than judiciousness; i.e., the exercise of judgment based on circumstance. Encouraging peopleto exercise judgment fosters competence and the more competent a society is, the less it stands in need of mindless obedience and equally mindless enforcement.
But there will be more accidents if people are left free to decide for themselves when it is safe to make a left or right turn (and so on) . . . .
Well, let’s examine this assertion.
In the first place it’s an assumption rather than a fact that there will be more accidents. Another example of a similar assumption is that there would be more accidents on the highways if the National Maximum Speed Limit that made it illegal to drive faster than 55 MPH for almost 20 years (from1974 to 1994) were to be repealed. It was repealed – and there weren’t more accidents; just fewer tickets issued for driving at speeds that had previously been legal.
It seems wrong in the sene that it demeans people to assume incompetence in the absence of evidence thereof – and to punish people not because they acted incompetently but because they chose to not act mindlessly (i.e., they did not just sit and wait for a light to change color and decided to make the turn when it was safe to do so). Just as it was wrong to punish people for driving 70 on highways designed for much faster where it had been legal to drive 70 until the federal government arbitrarily decreed no one could legally drive faster than 55. This was dirty pool and everyone knew it, including the cops who enforced it. The ones with consciences probably felt dirty at the end of each shift, knowing that while it was “the law,” it certainly wasn’t right.
Maybe there would be more accidents – at first. But this would serve two important purposes (assuming it proves to be the case that more accidents happen). The first is it would identify and weed out the incompetents who clearly have no business being in charge of a potentially dangerous implement such as a vehicle. This assumes they would held fully responsible for the accidents they cause – and damages/harms incurred. Not someone else.Not everyone else – as via the “societal costs” imposed on people who had nothing to do with causing them. Just the person whose poor judgment/skill behind the wheel caused an accident.
Here is where insurance could be a good thing rather than the thing it has become. People who don’t cause accidents would – in our happy scenario – pay little for a policy because they present little risk. Premiums could be based on the driver’s record (or lack thereof) of claims filed by him or against him – rather than jacked up because he got a ticket for making a left or right before the light changed color or Just Because (as has been happening to all of us over the past 2-3 years). People would also be free – ideally – to not buy insurance at all, at their own risk of course. The prospect of being sued into poverty is a strong inducement to responsible driving.
In short order there would be fewer accidents, too – because better and more responsible drivers have them less often.
This is of course a great heresy. It is no less true for being so.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
The state of Michigan already allows a left on red when turning on to a one-way street or freeway entrance ramp. Too many drivers are not aware of this. I have gone around stopped traffic to complete a left turn in such situations. This usually results in other drivers “getting the hint” and doing the same…
In our one light town, they start blinking around 9pm till about 5am, so you can do what you want, at those times anyways. This would be a good compromise for most lights.
Left, right, straight on thru – I do it all. I give the light about 30 seconds & when no traffic present then off I go. Especially on the scooter, that v-twin gets a cookin’ on a 90 degree day when stopped.
Come on! The illiterate driving public can’t even figure out which is the driving lane and which is the passing lane. How long do you think allowing people to think for themselves would last before the Ralph Nader worshipping pussies would put the kibosh to it?
Hi Doug,
Well, like the Toothless Man said, I’d like to try it and see!
“Any fool can make a rule and any fool can mind it” HDT. I break the laws for traffic offences every day . The fuckabouts here are usually replacing a t intersection with little traffic. Saw a beauty where I went right and he took the shortcut left into a fuckabout, I thought power to you.
I’ll give you one further, which I’ve advocated for years:
Get rid of traffic controls.
Make people think and negotiate with one another. Everyone keeps their eyes on the road and on each other. Yes, still have “rules of the road” in a “right-of-way” and “order-of-operations” sense, but no more lights and useless signs thinking for people.
Then we’ll see what kind of drivers we propagate.
The stop light for car was inspired by the signals used for railroads back in the 19th century, which were developed out of necessity.
The first traffic signals weren’t mandated by any law. They came into existence because of all the different traffic – pedestrians, horses, bicycles, street cars, Model Ts – trying to co-exist in the space. No grand conspiracy, just a bunch of different people trying to get along.
Although one of the complaints at the time was they would reduce courtesy since you no longer had to look other people in the eye rather you could just stare at the lights. Sound familiar, zombies walking around face down in a phone screen perhaps?
It actually sped up traffic flow and reduced accidents. From the first one in Cleveland in 1914 car fatalities declined by 50% until 1930 despite the numbers of cars skyrocketing. By the 1930s size and power of cars allowed higher speeds, the number of them created congestion and more consequence to a wrecks.
That’s not to say things can’t change, naturally.
Then there was this, Jim:
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/living/shared-spaces-future-cities/index.html
“The town of Drachten in the Netherlands was one of the first to experiment the concept in 2002 by removing nearly all traffic signals with the aim of reducing accidents and improving both the towns quality and popularity. Despite increases in traffic volumes, accident numbers fell from 8.3 per year between 1994 and 2002 to an average of just one per year in 2005.”
I reckon at first, pedestrians and those on horseback were not so used to cars, and those in cars not used to higher speeds, but I think things can change for the better by doing away with this zombification.
Yeah indeed, times change. The problems of 1914 aren’t the ones of 2025. Although inattentive pedestrians are still a problem in the wonderful 15 Minute Cities Of The Future. Whether drivers now could get along without hand holding is debatable but I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that we need to remove the safety nets to bad decisions. Without the Darwinism to life the gene pool is being weakened.
Amen to that, Zotye!
I think the phrase “only the strong will survive” comes to mind. Or perhaps more skilled. I can just hear the Karen’s and bad drivers now: We need laws and regulations! Ugh.
In my neck of the woods, a lot of our left arrows flash yellow, meaning you can turn, but watch out for oncoming traffic.
At the stoplights that do not have this yellow flashing arrow, I’ll often use my good judgement to proceed through the red safely. Mind you, this is not done while cross traffic has the green light.
All for this. Except you are asking a lot of people with vaccine-damaged brains, and cars festooned with safety gizmo crap that such people increasingly rely upon, having abdicated responsibility for competency to some geek computer programmer. Driver courtesy, competency, and ability seem to have plummeted dramatically in recent vintage, while aggression and accidents habe all increased. Now add a mindfuck to their driving routine?
Absolutely, BAC –
But is there any other way to back out of this mess? Continuing to dumb-down everything leads to a dumbed-down pool of drivers. The fulsome scurvy truth is driving is something that ought to entail both risk and responsibility. Not everyone has the competence to operate a vehicle and such people ought to be obliged to either get competent or get in the passenger seat (or a bus). I think it has been nothing shy of disastrous to make it so that almost anyone with a pulse can “drive” – in the legal/allowed-to sense.
A very easy way to weed out those who can’t would be to require all new applicants pass a road test in a vehicle with a manual transmission.
Good grief Eric now you are making me feel old, haha. Manual trans on an old car. That is how I learned to drive and pass my driver’s test. Remember having to show you could parallel park? Now these new vehicles will do that for you. One day they will even wipe your backside haha.
The ideal situation of course is to get rid of all the regulatory devices, but that runs into a century of bad ideas and practices. Without the signs and lights, the driver has to rely on his judgement, and the judgement of his fellow drivers. In light traffic, and in the third world, it works pretty well.
My brother in law, before he bought his farm on the outskirts of Baghdad, was amazed by Iraqi traffic. They actually drove like free men, as fast as they were comfortable and ignoring signs.
But when you have multilane intersections and entitled assholes who never yield, never show courtesy, think they are a Beta baboon challenging the Alpha for troop dominance, things fall apart.
Designing for modern traffic, with a combination of natural driving requirements, like with good, well designed roundabouts, or cloverleafs, is a far safer, smarter way to go.
Eliminating speed limits or at least raising them to the 85th percentile would greatly diminish congestion and collisions.
Pedestrian crosswalks shouldn’t exist except as tunnels under of skyways over the roads.
Design the roads for modern cars and modern traffic, in other words, rather than horses and buggies.
Perhaps a regional thing? Left on red is legal here, although only when it’s an intersection of two one-way streets. There’s even a double left on red intersection in town. Doing that freaks out visitors.
I’ve seen certain types of people here in New Jersey practice left on red. Not a good idea. It’s not the way you envision. A better idea is a roundabout. Go over to Europe or elsewhere and they are all over the place and work well. A lot cheaper than a light as well. They are trying those in my area also. The problem is the skill level of the average driver is so low they aren’t a great solution. The ones that practice left on red here have the most problems with them. Too fast into the roundabout, no signal, can’t understand yield. Some just drive right over the center of them. We all end up paying for their stupidity.
There are also people in NJ who sit in front of the green left turn arrow and wait…and wait.. and wait…i don’t know what they are waiting for.
About 5-10% of people can never be competent drivers due to low IQ. They only “drive” because the government “manages” the roads
That, and most roundabouts in the USA are poorly designed (diameter too small) and way too much signage.
A good one should only require you to slow down a little bit, and never have to stop.
The people who are sitting in front of a green arrow and not moving are most likely on their phone unfortunately. And yes, some of the roundabouts are too small though there are starting to be more proper sized ones. The problem is that too many drivers just can’t understand the yielding and that people in the roundabout have the right of way. And of course, nobody uses turn signals so that screws up the flow.
The round-a-bouts up here are way too narrow. The DOT needs to go to Europe to see how they are really constructed. And, they are a real treat to navigate around in the Winter when it is icy and snowy-ugh. What fool thought they were great for these parts is beyond me, as the DOT is all round-a-bout happy and likes to stick them everywhere. Never mind no one knows how to use them any more than the DOT knows how to construct them. How fitting.
“The problem is that too many drivers just can’t understand the yielding and that people in the roundabout have the right of way” — it’s not even taught in “driving schools”.
Also, I think the reason many roundabouts are too small is because many of them were built as an afterthought, and the available space was too small for a proper design
There was a new roundabout put in many years ago in my home town of Golden, Colorado. Giving benefit that they were trying something new in the late 90s. They designed it for normal two-way surface street traffic, which did not include anything more than a UPS truck. It was kind of an eye-opener when one during one of the first calls after opening it the fire department’s bigger apparatus got high centered on the flower bed in the middle like a turtle stuck on its belly. God love ’em for trying and they learned.
Hi Telly,
Well, it’s a start! I am in favor of anything that at least tries to make it more pleasant to drive as well as frees up driving. The two are of course synergistically inter-related.
There should not be any traffic “laws”.
The real long-lasting solution is to privatize all roads.
The owner’s interest is in maximizing the throughput of the road and reducing traffic accidents and incidents.
Thus, the owner will most likely make the access to the road conditional on the driver’s competency, not the ability to fog a mirror as is the case today. This will weed out the bottom 10-15% of people that create 80-90% of traffic jams and accidents. Driving on somebody’s property is not a God-given right anyhow.
The owner will also most likely set the rules of the road that are most suitable to the local conditions. The traffic lights vs the stop and yield signs vs roundabouts, the turn on red (right or left) – it is all depends on the traffic density and geography.
And of course, the lane/speed discipline – which today as a concept is not taught nor enforced, and not even known to the average driver. This concept was btw already enforced in Italy in the 30s of the last century – Italy was a high-tech power even then.
But of course this will never happen. Just like the gold standard and repudiation of the government debt, privatization of the roads does not make it to the political discourse.
So, chill out everybody
The best case for ‘left’ on red is that red is the traditional color of communist parties.
The traffic lights, they turn blue tomorrow
And shine their right-handedness down on my bed
And the wind screams “Mary”
— Jimi Hendrix, The Wind Cries Mary
Competency in driving has left the building.. Hard pass for this guy who still rides a motorcycle!
This is just going to create more traffic chaos in Chicago/NY/LA because people often drive inconsiderately, however I do think it would be good in smaller cities and all rural areas. In the big cities it is going to be a line of cars blocking the straight traffic. They can already barely handle keeping an intersection clear for a normal red and green.
We already have a ‘left-on-red’ device; it’s called a STOP sign. But, .. imagine the money-savings for local governments if they replace all traffic lights with stop signs. The electric bills would plummet! They might have to use those savings to pay their attorney fees, though .. when every auto insurance company in America sues them for malfeasance ..
I dont assume incompétence in the absence of evidence. The evidence is all around me. At least out here. The number of ‘infused’ drivers has become pretty significant since the great sniffle shutdown of 2O2O. Also, the insurance mafia will never loosen their leash on people.
We should start a class action lawsuit against the insurance companies based on the vague concepts of equity, and justice. Anyone who hasn’t had an accident in the last ten plus years could be a part of the class. As settlement we’d demand, rates reflecting such, or, the ability to opt out with no state sanction. Otherwise, left on red, not a good idea.
Maybe we should make a list of all the freedom[s] we lost, and we want back, and right…now.
Let’s start with no CAFE standards…gone. I don’t recall a vote of this.
How about AGW *qualified immunity*, this was made up by the supreme court, not legislation passed…gone.
No, there is nothing wrong with making a left on red as long as it’s done properly. To help with this we could do as some countries have with their traffic signals setup so when there’s less traffic, at night for example, they revert to caution mode. The default cycle will turn into a flashing red so you can stop and then go if there is no traffic going through the intersection.
While we are at it, replace stop signs with yield signs. It is rare to see one, but yield signs, and yielding in general is appropriate for many intersections over a stop sign, and making a complete stop, agreed. Municipalities setup stop signs, often at four way residential intersections, to appease people complaining about traffic speeding in front of their house. The stop sign is not necessary in this case for the street operation, especially at a four way intersection.
Ha! Around here the a-holes replace Yield signs with Stop signs, the better to raise revenue for the porkers whenever some poor slob rolls through one.
B-b-b-but mindless obedience is the wet dream of GovCo!
I like the idea of left on red. Unfortunately as Landru says the laws are there to protect the incompetent and stupid at the expense of those who know how to drive competently. You know someone will screw this up. I do not know…but somehow they will.
The obedience thing reminds me of the scene in Manhunt: Unabomber where the FBI guy is telling Teddy K about the stupid obedience of a late-night red light.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhJSjLqHpHw
Hat tip for that clip, MH – it’s brilliant!
I just added it to the article.
Manhunt: Unabomber, great miniseries, I highly recommend.
Left on red is an interesting idea but as we are living in a world where a distinctly significant portion of the population is unsure of which washroom to use makes me wonder if they would also not grasp the need for taking that second look when making a left on red turn.
I figure a skilled driver should have few problems doing this but weather conditions will play a major factor in a successful turn i.e. fog, sleet, snow, sun you name it. Downtown LA might not be the best place for an initial test but Podunk Indiana or Galt’s Gulch would probably have lighter traffic and fewer lanes to contend with.
Either way an interesting idea and in areas with lighter traffic would be welcomed by responsible drivers.
Hi Landru,
I submit the whole point is encouraging responsible, judicious driving – as opposed to dumbed-down, mindless obedience. I make a left on red almost every day at the signaled intersection adjacent to the gym where I go to lift. I won’t just there like an idiot wasting my time because the light is red if the way is clear – and I defy anyone to prove that it is “unsafe” to do so.
Hi Eric:
Left on red under the right conditions is not unsafe. Traffic laws however are based not on the best driver’s skills but the worst driver’s skills. As an added bonus GovCo can use the traffic laws to mulct the good drivers who can make a left on red successfully.
In the end money will decide what happens, not common sense or improving traffic flow.
This