[rolleiflex]

Same in Turkey, and I presume through most of continental Europe. Most stop signs were removed in late 90s and converted into either implicit yields (i.e. nothing, ‘don’t be stupid’ rule) or traffic lights. Right now they’re trialling allowing California style allowed right turn at red lights.

[occz]

> Right now they're trialling allowing California style allowed right turn at red lights.

Sounds unwise - this is a fundamentally unsafe policy [1], and more people will die if it's implemented.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002243...

[brimble]

Makes sense outside cities. Not so great in cities.

[screye]

> California style allowed right turn at red lights.

How are these different from other 'right turns on red' in the US ?

I find turning on red to be a pretty bad idea, because Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians. I think a majority of pedestrian accidents occurs on turn on reds/stops .

[occz]

>I find turning on red to be a pretty bad idea, because Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians. I think a majority of pedestrian accidents occurs on turn on reds/stops.

Right on red is indeed unsafe: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002243...

[JPKab]

"Americans rarely stop fully and look out for pedestrians"

Rarely is being heavily abused in this statement. It's just not true. Otherwise pedestrian fatalities would be vastly higher than they are. Additionally, regional driving habits differ drastically. People in Colorado and California drive far more aggressively than they do in Iowa or even more densely populated areas on the east coast, where policing is far more rigorous.

[JPKab]

The US, for various reasons that primarily relate to privatized healthcare and a proliferation of lawyers, had absurdly high rates of lawsuits and liability around driving. Most road signs here are excessive for the purposes of making it as straightforward as possible to assign liability to a driver in the event of an acccident.

A prime example of this is the "No U-Turn" signs all over the US. People make U-turns at these spots all the time. The sign is really just there to ensure that any accident resulting from said U-turn is always, no matter what, the turner's fault in a legal sense.

[throwaway0a5e]

I'd be far happier if we were just allowed to ignore the signs and have strict liability for the consequences if we screw up doing so. Being subject to fines and harassment by law enforcement is what I don't like.

[legalcorrection]

Being allowed to turn right on red is the law in every US state. The only real exception is that it's banned in a few downtowns and, obviously, wherever a sign says otherwise.

[eatonphil]

One counterexample, right turn on red is not allowed anywhere in any borough of NYC. And outer Queens/Brooklyn/Staten Island are indistinguishable (to me) from the rest of Long Island (suburb). (i.e. not just downtown/busy areas of NYC)

[chrisseaton]

Right on red is a bizarre murderous idea - why let cars cross a pedestrians' right of way?

[saagarjha]

I’m not a huge fan of right-turn-on-red but one thing I don’t often seen brought up is that right-turn-on-green is problematic as well, for this very reason. When your light (to go forward) turns green, the pedestrian crossing on your right often also turns green, which means there are now pedestrians trying to cross your path. It’s definitely better because you’re only have to focus on pedestrians and not traffic, but “green=go” is a thing that has led several cars to almost hit me at street crossings.

[frosted-flakes]

Better than right turn on green, where the same thing occurs. With right turn on red, cars must stop before turning. Furthermore, cars are not permitted to turn if there are pedestrians crossing.

[frosted-flakes]

How is that California-style? That's the general rule in USA/Canada (not sure about Mexico). Some dense cities like New York and Montreal forbid right-turns on red city-wide, but those are the exception.