I'll make it short. I often see near-accidents when cars are trying to turn right whilst the oncoming traffic still has green light. Waiting for a break in traffic is one thing, but most incidents occur when the light is about to change. Wouldn't it be more efficient and safe to have a dedicated right-turn signal for 5 seconds every cycle?
Is It Time to Abolish The "Turn Right When Possible" Rule?
BargainCowboy on 06/10/2022 - 11:36
Poll Options
- 499Keep the rule as is - turn right on green light when no oncoming traffic
- 87I prefer dedicated green light to turn right
Comments
- 1
- 2
I relate to that second sentence so hard. I also hate how when opposing traffic is 3+ lanes it nearly always has a red arrow (no turn right when possible) despite having several hundred metres of visibility.
Same.
The last thing we want is to abolish is "turn right when possible". What we need to abolish is red arrows.
I disagree.
There is one particular intersection near my home where people would turn right in front of me while I'm doing 70 and I would need to brake to avoid hitting them. They changed it to a red arrow a few years ago and I believe this intersection is much better for it. They then added a safety camera there as well so it must have been a pretty high risk intersection.
I don't believe all intersections should have red arrows but certainly some have benefit.
@jzdhgkd: It’s almost like there are a number of possible solutions and we should implement the appropriate solution according to the situation at each intersection.
It's not driving but basic impulse control.
Have a test where they get beeped at and see how they react
I think we need 5-yearly refresher courses and compulsory courses for long term visitors. Too many people don't know how roundabouts work and how to merge on to motorways and to turn on the headlights in the rain.
Or turn off the fog lights when it's not actually foggy lol.
Honestly though it's just political why we don't have even a second driving test for people as they age. Seriously only one practical test until you're 80, like I don't care how good people think they are, they've probably picked up some bad habits or at least not adapted to rule changes over that time.
They don't even retest people using an unlimited attempt quiz on the top 10 broken rules list that they put out a few years back. They should just do.it when you renew. It doesn't actually have to cost more money but at least check that the person knows the rules. It can be open book for all I care but at least for about 5 seconds they'll know what the answer is.
They don't even retest people using an unlimited attempt quiz on the top 10 broken rules list that they put out a few years back. They should just do.it when you renew. It doesn't actually have to cost more money but at least check that the person knows the rules. It can be open book for all I care but at least for about 5 seconds they'll know what the answer is.
Testing top 10 broken rules with open book would be a great idea. Just add in any new rules as well. Even do it like the multitude of online training courses now. Ie watch a video/PowerPoint answer a few multiple choice. If you get them wrong, watch again, question again.
how to merge on to motorways
I merge in at 40kph and fully expect the traffic on the freeway lane I merge into to slow down or change lanes (I prefer the right most lane of course and I just close my eyes as I weave through the maniacs on other lanes until I get there). That's how it's done, right? Riiight?!
PS: no idea why the car behind me seems to become impatient. Why can't they wait for me to merge safely first? Lots of dangerous drivers out there.
/s
You don't live near Noble Park (Vic) by any chance? There's a terrible roundabout there. Half the drivers are NFI.
Nah, in Sydney. We've got a few pretty bad ones here though.
People don't seem to know how to indicate too
And the lane change and turn signals…
Yes people need refreshers on u-turns and that they must give way
Just trying to see other people's perspectives. No need to have that attitude mate.
And yet …
You wasted the time it took to write this acerbic response.
Watch any dashcam compilation, and you'll see what OP is talking about.
TIL a new word!
Yet another time waster!
Like you had anything else going on.
Almost feels like the lights are designed to turn red when opposite traffic arrives given how often it happens
A couple of years ago they upgraded the highway on/off ramp near my house. They took away the left turn at any time coming off the highway. Now, every day, I sit for about 2-3 minutes watching an empty road before a light tells me I'm allowed to move the 5m to join it. If I ever meet the engineer who signed off on this design I'm going to slap him.
They ruined the chandler the same way.
Wouldn't the accidents be caused by those drivers continuing on through an amber light, when they should be stopping?
Doesn't the amber light mean to fang it?
Problem is when multiple idiots fang it at the same time making it a fang it cluster f…..
Cluster fang?
Normally yes
Exactly this!!
I run at a nearby track/reserve on weekends near a school zone and there are so many morons who will see a car waiting to turn and then slow for the amber before then trying to speed up to beat it.
Every few weeks I'll either see an accident, see the remains (glass and debris) in the cross section or see the gates of the school caved in by the turning cars trying to beat the oncoming cars.
The problem is more to do with the arseholes that are going straight and continuing to go even after the red when there are right turn cars waiting in the intersection to clear it.
I dont know how many times I have been waiting on a right turn and had the lights go yellow and then red and about to go and some (fropanity) idiot decided to still come through anyway.
There are bigger issues than this one that need to be fixed and quality of driver education and minimum standards need to be reviewed. And road rule education. This forum is a travesty to the stupidity of most driver's knowledge when it comes to road rules when the wrong answers are routinely upvoted and any attempt to point people to the right legislation is met with downvotes and vitriol.
This type of "I'm angry about this road rule" wouldn't exist if people actually knew how to drive and knew what the road rules were. Oh, and had patience and understanding of each other.
Agree with everything you said, but changing people's behaviour is a much harder feat to accomplish…
Speed cameras on the approach to traffic lights until people learn, I guess.
Rear end isn't as catastrophic as smashing into the side of someone while you're accelerating.
Would be waaaay cheaper to put up a sign saying "red light camera" than having an actual camera, and just as effective.
just install severe tire damage spike strips that pop up as the lights turn red.
I dont know how many times I have been waiting on a right turn and had the lights go yellow and then red and about to go and some (fropanity) idiot decided to still come through anyway.
agree eleventy willion % around our way its the 'new australians' in tippers causing the red light danger…
^ This is the only possible explanation.
Keep in mind that all lights are red for three seconds, so how could there be an accident unless the car going straight ran the red light?
100%, unfortunately stupid is contagious, the more people do this the more others think it's acceptable because if they do it then I can/should too.
I mean technically you could go the other way and say that if you're turning right you should stay behind the line until you're sure it's clear.
Look, I 100% agree with you but this exact issue even came up during my driving lessons. The instructor said they weren't even sure whether or not the testing officer would've considered me in the wrong for being out in the intersection while the light is going red. There's just not heaps of clarity on it.
When I was taught to drive (admittedly 20 years ago) I was specifically told that if I was at the front of the queue then I should move into the intersection (as long as the road I was turning onto was clear) and then I had right of way to clear the intersection - even after the light had changed.
Well, not ‘right of way’ to clear it, but a responsibility to clear the intersection. I failed a driving test because I moved into an intersection across the hold line and then stayed put when the lights went red instead of going through.
Once you cross the line you are required to clear the intersection when possible.
Fair enough. I definitely agree that you should clear it. I almost always go into the intersection regardless, even if there's a straggler that pushes it, most cars aren't gonna ram you as soon as the light goes green.
Safe yes efficient hell no.
I don't see any reason to change it. By your logic we should have traffic lights at every intersection ever because it's safer.They're pulling it out from a lot of sites in Victoria, the standard approach has shifted to not allow right turns to filter. Noting it's staying in at a lot of places where it's needed for efficiency
There are a few near my place where during peak time you can filter at any time, and outside that, there's a red arrow.
i.e. When there's heaps of traffic and the far side is blocked and everyone's in a rush, feel free to use your judgement, but when it's 10pm and you can see there's no one coming for 500m+ in the other direction, now it's unsafe to turn unless you've got a green arrow
Once all of Victoria is on mandatory cannabis the rest of Oz could allow right hand turns?
I'm struggling to understand that sentence.
I thought it may have been a vague/obscure reference to SlavOz and his hate for the Victorian leader and how the other day Slav made a reference to dope being illegal but vaccinations were forced, like they were even remotely similar issues.
I could be wrong though…
the poll should read: In attempt to fix stupidity how much would you be prepared to pay for?
People are stupid enough on the road without marijuana . It's not planet dystopia….
Never underestimate how stupid people can be.
But they might be less angry when doped up?
I think the poll is flawed; it doesn't need to be one or the other. It depends on the specific site.
Each intersection with right-hand turn lights has a longer cycle, that other drivers need to wait through.To simplify it I chose a blanket approach. Would you rather wait for 5 seconds extra, knowing that you are safer, or skip that time and assume you'll get a break in traffic? There's another thing there too, many lights in SE MEL only accommodate for 1 car to turn right and cycle lengths can be up to 40 seconds. Is this efficient? I don't think so personally.
Speaking of efficiency, you've just added 5 seconds onto each light "turn".
Let's say lights used to switch every 30 seconds, so a standard intersection would allow both directions a full turn in 1 minute (North-South for 30 secs, then East-West for 30 secs). Now that's 1 minute 10 seconds for a turn.
All traffic is now 17% slower, to prevent some rare cases were some people weren't able to make a turn they wanted.
In theory an interesting idea, but cost/benefit, the numbers aren't there.
This isn't even taking into consideration of the potential of backed up traffic of only getting a few cars through in that 5s window whereas many cars could potentially turn with no incoming traffic.
How about single lane each way?
Other interesting ideas that are dumb:
- rule where right turns are banned entirely; design city with only left hand turns!
- political party promises to grade sep all roads!
- all right hand turns must be hook turns
- car camera AI able to determine if a right-hand turn can be made using cameras and sensors (isnt this part of what elon promised?!). imagine aftermarket kit that saw incoming traffic, road width and knows your driving behaviour and indicates if you should turn or not (what majority of drivers can manage without incident). george hotz has probably already invented this.
On busy roads a green arrow is necessary or there would be no turning right.
But apart from that, it should be turn right when you can - certainly don't want to get rid of that. Should get rid of red arrows though - that's the cause of the problem.Red arrows are appropriate in some places. A local intersection needs them as right turn goes first, then you need to stop the turn traffic so straight through can go. Right turn is required to go first to clear the build up of right turn traffic that would otherwise block the through traffic.
@Euphemistic: I'm not opposed to a red arrow to make it clear no more turning right, though it should be clear when the green arrow goes out that the oncoming traffic is about to start again.
However, that red arrow must only be for a moment. Unless it is a poorly designed intersection and visibility is poor, I should be able to turn right as soon as there is no oncoming traffic, not have to wait for the next green arrow in the cycle.
There is no cure for stupidity
if we banned turning then qe have no issues
everyone drives inna straight lineThere kinda is, though. Stop giving licenses to people who obviously dont deserve them. I know people with a drivers license who should never have been given a pen license in grade 6 at school, let a lone be allowed to be in control of a 2 tonne tissue box.
There needs to be a much stronger approach to testing people to get their license and every 5~10 years, you should have to at least sit a knowledge test, not just an eye test.
Stupid and uneducated drivers are allowed on the roads because A: MuH RiGhTs!! and B: because idiots make mistakes that governments can then tax via fining people.
Totally agree that we need to implement knowledge testing upon licence renewal. It’s not hard, there’s infrastructure there to test learners and p platers, just increase it to include full licence holders.
Probably should include the hazard perception test as well.
Agreed! You can also add cognitive assessments in also!
I've seen way too many drivers that can't even pay attention while driving, they'll be looking up, but their mind will be elsewhere.I don't think it would hurt to have to do one every 2 years, then once you hit retirement age, every 6 months.
For the purpose of clarity, what is "retirement age"?
@CtrlAltSpoods: Actually:
"There's no set age that you have to wait for if you want to retire in Australia – and there's also no set age that you must retire"@GG57: I never said anything about being forced to retire, that year I specified is the general gist of retirement age as that is when you're allow to receive the pension. (The year when a lot of people retire)
They could just make it a blanket 65+ years old = more often cognitive testing requirements.
@CtrlAltSpoods: WA requires people of 80-84y.o. to undertake an annual medical assessment before renewing their license; people aged 85+ have to also undertake an annual Practical Driving Assessment.
I think 65 (as you suggest) is too young for such a requirement.
that year I specified is the general gist of retirement age as that is when you're allow to receive the pension. (The year when a lot of people retire)
If you mean retirement then reference retirement age, if you mean pension age then use that - absolutely no point in conflating the two different things.
Which group are you suggesting to target with your suggestions?
According to the ABS - (https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unem…)
55% of people over 55 were retired, up from 53% in 2016-17.
Average retirement age (of all retirees) was 55.4 years.@greatlamp: Please give a clear definition of 'old people' that would be legally binding.
Having opinions on unclearly defined descriptions is basically having no real opinion at all.
Do you not understand the difference between retirement and pension?Do you not understand the difference between retirement and pension?
Technically there is a difference, but ask most people what they think of each and they’ll likely give your similar answer for both - somewhere between 60 and 70.
@Euphemistic: Just because many people sometimes use the terms interchangeably does not make it correct.
There is not a 'technical' difference just because you want to be lazy and believe that 'most people' agree with you..
As I noted above55% of people over 55 were retired, up from 53% in 2016-17.
Average retirement age (of all retirees) was 55.4 years.
@Grunntt: We aren't writing up the legislation here. It's possible to have a discussion without stopping to list all the exceptions and specifications. This isn't law school.
In case it wasn't already obvious, I intentionally used the term "old people" as it is vague, because it isn't the point of the conversation. The point of the conversation is if people should be retested. This pedantry is derailing the discussion.
In case it wasn't already obvious, I intentionally used the term "old people" as it is vague, because it isn't the point of the conversation. The point of the conversation is if people should be retested. This pedantry is derailing the discussion.
In case it isn't obvious to you - using broad generalisations derails a conversation more than using more accurate terminology.
What is the difficulty with using words that have the actual meaning rather than some sort of waffling generalisation that lets you weasle out of clearly supporting your argument with facts?What is the difficulty with using words that have the actual meaning rather than some sort of waffling generalisation that lets you weasle out of clearly supporting your argument with facts?
This isn't relevant to the conversation.
I can see being right is very important to you. You are right. Ok?
@Grunntt: What does it matter the technicality of the description when the actual age hasn’t even been finalised? Call it old, retirement age, pension age, whatever there isn’t a discussion on actually implementing a test yet.
You get my vote for AU Traffic Management leader.
prefer to have turn left at anytime with care
This change alone would help keep cars moving.
If you mean left turn on any red light permitted if safe to do so….indeed it would be better.
But, the intersection might still need a red arrow if there are pedestrians crossing.
Left turn on red after stopping should be the default with dangerous intersections having a red arrow.
Pretty sure I just said that.
they exist in qld
Best thing about QLD
Do they still? I thought they got rid of them, the last one I saw was in the US some years ago and they worked brilliantly.
The new norm is lights and arrows everywhere, there was a roundabout that used to get congested at times near me, After more than 2 years of roadworks they've added a clusterf* of lights and arrows and now it's twice as congested for most of the day.
Will nobody think of the baby penguins?
There was an intersection in the city with lights and a left turn permitted on red light with care in the city. Not sure if it's still there. Not a slip lane. Obvious issue is that it probably won't work with red light cameras.
I know of a couple in NSW. It’s not the default, but left turn on red exists without a slip lane.
So you want to go and install a right turn arrow (and probably a lane) at every set of traffic light? Then make everyone wait for a green arrow regardless if there is no oncoming traffic?
No thanks. The amount of time I’ve wasted sitting at a red arrow when no one is coming along (especially at night) is ridiculous. It’ll just further create traffic adding time to the light cycle
Good argument. Just on that, I was referring only to existing lanes obviously, no change to infrastructure.
I’m sure they do a level of risk assessment and monitoring of those lights and determine which ones are best to hold the red arrow and which can get a round green. There are several intersections locally where the arrow timing is ‘always red’ and others where it is ‘blank’ while straight has green. Just depends on the traffic volumes.
Suburb to Suburb basis.
Just to put it into perspective that it's not as unsafe as it sounds.
In America they introduced a turn right on red rule to increase traffic flow (turn left on red would be our equivalent). Basically as long as it was clear you could run a red light legally.
They still have it to this day.That’s quite different. OP is talking about turning across traffic not away from it.
Still everything is relative.
In my past life as a traffic engineer the filter light (straight green - no arrow) is there because the cross lane movement doesn't have enough demand to congest the intersection.The green arrow only gets introduced when the level of service for the filtering light fails. As when you bring in the solid arrow you introduce an additional light "phase" which further delays the entire intersection and reduces performance of all movements.
This guy SCATS
- 1
- 2
It would be better to teach people how to drive, not just how to pass their exam… I'd see more red light cameras being better to stop people running the orange/red light.
Nothing like sitting at a red arrow with nothing at all coming the other way - and when the traffic does start coming towards you - they get a red light… synchronizing lights would also help.