This has nothing to do with no turn on red. Plenty of lights have been changed so that when the right crosswalk has a walk sign, I have a green light to turn but yield to pedestrian. On busy streets (intersection between memorial drive and n Harvard st comes to mind), you’re basically being put in danger by the city who’s decides cars should time their way through pedestrians or not get through the light as only one person usually does along with holding up people behind them who want to go straight… this is instead of just giving cars a full green and THEN give pedestrians the walk. It used to be like that and then they changed it to the current stupid timing.

There’s examples of TONS of this across Cambridge along with no turn on red signs put up for literally no reason. I’ve seen so many intersections with these signs and there’s never a reason why. Not a blind corner, not a protected bike lane on the right, plenty of opportunity from other lights to allow drivers to turn right safely, etc. The people coming up with this are just stupid. So many nonsensical intersections in this city.

I also support this!

I understand that. You might find it interesting to look up traffic lights in The Netherlands: they are installing smart lights, super sensitive to approaching traffic (thus reducing wait times at lights) as a part of a light system that separates various traffic types (vehicular, pedestrian and cycles). A lot can be done with technology when there is a will—and some funding.

What? If it's a side street and there's no one else anywhere at the intersection, how is it “not safe for anyone”?

Slightly unrelated but there are so many blind turns in Cambridgeport with the grid layout and people parked right up to every corner

Every. Single. Day.

And then they complain about cyclists. LOL.

I see a lot of "no turn on red" signs, which might as well be invisible for all the good they do.

NYC doesn't allow right on red anywhere, citywide. I hope Cambridge will follow suit.

It can… without dialogue this though we wouldn’t come to better mutual solutions. Cameras have proven their utility, they shouldn’t be the replacement for the onus.

Doesn't matter unless the Cambridge PD actually started enforcing traffic laws. Blocking the box, driving like a total asshole, running red lights, parking in no stopping zones, jumping the curb.

There is no end to you fellow Cambridge residents disregard for traffic laws no matter their mode of transportation.

1. Drivers turning right during the leading pedestrian interval. LPI is far less effective at increasing safety where right on red is allowed.
2. Pedestrian scrambles/all walk phases, as mentioned.
3. Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians who are crossing the right turn lane.

Maybe a minority view, but I disagree with this idea. It will only contribute to more congestion on already crowded roads. The problem here is not the lights, its lack of enforcement of drivers cutting off pedestrians.

It's also a trade off we made against pedestrian/cycling safety:

> The report findings show large percentage increases in right-turn accidents at signalized locations after RTOR (e.g., increases ranging from 43% to 107% for pedestrians, and increases ranging from 72% to 123% for bicyclists in the three states studied.)

People in the article linked to in this post can try to have it both ways, but ultimately I'd rather be stuck in a traffic jam than see people hit more frequently because someone wanted a few seconds of times savings on their commute.

Wikipedia supports this claim with a few sources in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#North_America

Of course we did this at the expense of pedestrian and cyclist safety, as the same Wikipedia page has some sources for significant increases in motor vehicle crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists after adoption of right turn on red: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#Pedestrian_and_bicyclist_safety

As I recall, way back (1979’s?) the state implemented a ban on turning right on red. It was sort of overturned when a court said there has to be a sign preventing it, otherwise it has to be allowed. If this is indeed the case, then Cambridge can only do this by placing signs at what few / if any intersections don’t already have them.

Yeah absolutely not a single silver bullet, but I think no turn on red and camera enforcement can be part of the solution

The default for larger streets/main arteries is 25 if there are no signs saying otherwise. It's 20 everywhere else.

>When in doubt, go 20mph.

But it's already illegal to turn right on red into a pedestrian. How does this change anything? Local laws that dont match the rest of the country don't help anyone. Better to add traffic easing at all major turns instead

They can make all the laws they want, but if they don’t bother to enforce them, it won’t make a difference. People blow through red lights like crazy around here.

No worries. Just highlighting that the scope of the problem is larger than what is being addressed by this myopic solution.

Yeah the whole screens in cars is such a bad idea. Switching from physical buttons makes it harder for drivers to keep their eyes on the road since you need to look for controls instead of feel them. Didn't realize that's what you were talking about in your comment. Sounded like you were saying traffic cameras have to come with more screens that will distract people

Better road construction has proven to be more the more sustainable solution.

The distractions in driving have increased with the scaled adoption of smart devices… cars are now and increasingly becoming rolling computers …

Nothing to do with political ideology, and I do believe taxes are important. Just believe that this problems is solved by human interdiction and not another unnecessary tech. better yet.. the drivers that are speeding should be appropriately ticketed by an officer that lives and serves (preferably in that community) and either way it still goes down to both the driver and pedestrian obsession with the device in hand versus the just paying attention to the road it is what we’re taught when we get our license… if people approached driving with the caution we should than would there any cause for concern for the pedestrian outside of unruly drivers that will perpetually exist despite what imaginary line you draw for them… cameras are the lazy solution. People just need to pay closer attention to the task at hand and driving is one of the privileged responsibilities we have.

>I’d argue that people should just pay attention to road as a pedestrian as well by picking their heads up from their phones and or devices

So pretty much ask people nicely to be better drivers? This does nothing and we know that. And yeah pedestrians and drivers should both pay attention. But when pedestrians don't pay attention they put themselves at risk while drivers not paying attention put others at risk. The point of traffic cameras, no right turns on red, and actual enforcement of traffic laws is to prevent people from getting hurt of killed

>The solution is not more cameras and screens on the streets but more eyes and ears

Cameras, not screens, not sure where you got the adding screens idea. If drivers never have accountability for breaking laws then they will keep doing it, just look at speed limits. We can't have a cop on every corner making sure cars are doing the right thing so cameras can help in certain places

Sounds outdated then given the prevalence of electric cars which don't idle, and even most combustion cars now shut down the engine when stopped and restart it when you use the accelerator.