• my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Hate to break it to you but that link is talking in percentages. The only absolute number the give is number of fatalities, everything else is a percentage. Specifically, it claims that because turning right on red represents a small % of overall injuries from all traffic it’s not unsafe. That’s not an exaggeration, it’s literally the conclusion they give.

    In conclusion, there are a relatively small number of deaths and injuries each year caused by right-turn-on-red crashes. These represent a very small percentage of all crashes, deaths, and injuries. Because the number of crashes due to right-turn-on-red is small, the impact on traffic safety, therefore, has also been small. Insufficient data exist to analyze left turn on red.

    A bullet to the arm is safer than a bullet to the head but that doesn’t make it safe.

    • hemmes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Approximately 84 fatal crashes occurred per year during the 1982-1992 time period involving a right-turning vehicle at an intersection where RTOR is permitted. During this same time period there were 485,104 fatalities.

      Thus, less than 0.2 percent of all fatalities involved a right-turning vehicle maneuver at an intersection where RTOR is permitted. FARS, however, does not discern whether the traffic signal was red. Therefore, the actual number of fatal RTOR crashes is somewhere between zero and 84 and may be closer to zero than 84.

      They literally use numbers in their report.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        That data source does not include accidents that are not fatal. Do those not matter? The report also clearly identifies limitations of both data sources they use: what I read from that is we don’t have sufficient data

    • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      11 months ago

      You people won’t stop until folks are living in a bubble under gun point. There is always another low value crusade that most people don’t want to hear about just shoved in their faces.

      • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        Compelling argument. Counter-point: what the fuck are you talking about and how does it relate to people’s right not to be run over in the street?

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            bikes kill pedestrians

            Exceedingly rarely, almost to the point of not happening. You know this is a braindead argument.

            • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              11 months ago

              ThatsThePoint.jpg.

              Just like cars killing people on right hand reds. It’s a very low occurring incident.

              • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                False. In my city right on red kills people every year, but there has only been one bike that killed a pedestrian in 40 years and even that seemed like a weird fluke if you read about it

                  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Yeah I should probably accept your link as reality instead of the facts that I know for sure

          • poopkins@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            We should advocate for having dedicated biking lanes to reduce these kinds of accidents, and redesign intersections to create a buffer space between pedestrian and bicycle crossing areas.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            While fatalities are rare to the point of non-existence, it’s certainly a fair concern that bicyclists have too much difference in speed and maneuverability from pedestrians, risking too many accidents/injuries. That’s why we separate them: bicycling is not allowed on sidewalks