No Turn on Red

Friends,

As you go through life, you learn to appreciate silver linings. If a hairdresser cuts your hair way too short and it looks bad, that's a bummer; but hey, it will now be longer until your next haircut and thus you'll save some money. If your favorite basketball or football team is in the tank, at least they'll get a good draft pick next year. If a dog poops in your yard... okay, there's not always a silver lining.

I think this might be why I love turning right on red. Red lights are, in general, a bad part of driving. You just have to sit there. Nothing is happening except that you're becoming a little bit later for that meeting. The more you struggle with boredom and impatience, the worse red lights can be.

That's why it's nice that there's a little silver lining-- if you're turning right, go ahead and make that turn. Red light averted!

...unless you live in Pittsburgh.

A Mystery for the Ages
Well, just the age of automobile transportation

For some reason, in the city limits of Pittsburgh, you're almost never allowed to turn right on red. Sometimes, this makes sense for geographical or traffic reasons. But sometimes it doesn't, and I'm going to highlight just one example of this.

It's a spot any Pitt student, or really anyone who's been to Oakland, will recognize immediately: the stretch of Forbes Ave. between the Cathedral of Learning and Schenley Plaza. Here's a map:

Photo credit: Google Maps

Ok, I want to specifically draw your attention to the intersection, when you're driving on Forbes, at the "end" of Schenley Plaza, before you reach the museums. It's the one I've circled below:

Photo credit: Google Maps, Microsoft Paint

Now, I want you to notice three things about this intersection:

• Forbes is one-way. This means that when you are at a red light on Forbes, there is no oncoming traffic; specifically, there is no oncoming traffic that could have a left green arrow to be turning onto Schenley Drive Extension on your right. Furthermore, the traffic driving up Schenley Drive Ext. can't turn left onto Forbes.
• It's not some sort of zany, steep, curvy, blind, wooded, careening, narrow, or otherwise dangerous turn. This is your standard, 90-degree, open-air right turn.
• Sure, pedestrians cross Schenley Dr Ext. But when Forbes Ave. drivers have a green light is the ideal time for those people to walk, just as at any stoplight. When the traffic perpendicular to you is stopped, you walk across. As for pedestrians crossing Forbes itself, this is the same as any red-light scenario--the stopped, slow-moving drivers turning right on red yield to the easy-to-see, slow-moving pedestrians. No danger whatsoever.

So there's absolutely no reason to stop a driver from turning right, during a red light, from Forbes to Schenley Dr Ext. And yet:

Photo credit: Google Maps Street View

Now, you may not be able to read that little white sign next to the traffic light. So I've taken the liberty of zooming in:

Photo credit: Hell

Have you been mystified by the 'No Turn on Red' traffic laws of Pittsburgh? Does your city do this, too?

Do you have any other traffic rule pet peeves?

Comment below!

Jon

SHARE THE ROAD (they scream)

Friends,

Here's a fun fact about me: I've never been very good at riding a bike. There have been three distinct phases of my life in which riding a bike has been relevant, and each contains its own unpleasant memory.

Elementary school years, Elm Grove neighborhood in Wheeling, WV: my friend Blake came over to ride bikes together, and I accidentally drove mine right into his, knocking us both to the ground.

Middle school years, Oakmont Hills neighborhood in Wheeling, WV: my neighbor Matt was riding in a van with his mom, and just as they drove to a spot right by me, I suddenly and inexplicably fell off my bike to the ground.

College years, mission trip in a large city in "East Asia": I rented a bike to ride it to a neighboring part of the city. While nothing bad actually happened, I pedaled in terror as my mind replayed the above two memories the entire time. It's amazing I survived that 20-minute bike ride.

So, for the purposes of our present conversation, suffice it to say... I have no sympathy for bicyclists.


The Problem with Bikes on the Road
That should read "problems," but the s clashes with the s from bikes

Listen, I know I'm taking an incredibly unpopular line here, particularly in the era of going green. Bikes don't produce the harmful emissions of cars. Riding a bike helps a person stay healthy and fit. Shouldn't we all just work together and make sacrifices for the environment and physical health?!?

Yeah, probably. But I'm not asking everyone to throw away their bikes (or even a more eco-friendly act like turning them into modern art). If you want to bike around to various places, that's your choice and prerogative, as much as it annoys me. But I have two big problems with the way most cyclists seem to do it:

1. Why aren't you obeying any traffic laws??
Cyclists want to be treated on the road like a slow-moving car. My understanding is you yield to them, give them a wide berth, only pass them when you can safely go over into the next (usually oncoming) lane to do so, etc. I'm fine with all that. Bikes can operate and be treated as snail-like, molasses-soaked, slow motion replay, almost-staying-at-rest cars. Whatever. Patience is a virtue, so thank you cyclists, for making me more virtuous. However, why do these "cars" get to run EVERY SINGLE RED LIGHT in the world when no cars are coming? And I mean it--every single one. I've never seen a cyclist who didn't casually pedal through a red light, provided no one was coming. And they're always squeezing between cars waiting at a red light and parked cars just to make sure they can run that red!

2. How can you be so full of rage? Do you think we know car-bicycle laws??
Maybe it's because I'm anciently old, but there were absolutely no questions on my driving test about sharing the road with bikes. There was never an official memo issued years later that said, "Hey drivers, there are now a bunch of slow-moving bicycles right smack in the middle of your driving lane. Sorry if you wanted to be on time to that meeting. Here are the relevant driving laws." So when we legitimately don't know the right way to pass you, or yield to you, or smile as you run every red light, please don't, like, lose your mind and summon the burning ire of all the world's volcanoes. I once unknowingly tried to turn right on red around a group of bikers (who were just sitting there, not making any attempt to turn right themselves), and their grizzled leader seriously almost exploded his own head during his red-faces tirade of screams at me.

A few considerations: I understand that in the large scheme of things, it is the bikers who are at risk in shared road experiences. If they get hit, they can die. Believe me, I want drivers to be informed and safe and for no bikers or drivers to suffer any injuries anywhere at any time (and for you drivers who want to educate yourselves, here's a helpful site). This doesn't change the fact that bicyclists on the road are super annoying. In some sense, the answer to #2 above could simply be, "We're angry at bad driving because our lives are at stake." In theory, yes, of course. But I've seen many cyclists flip out about situations that are not remotely life-threatening, in which the driver's responsibility is not at all clear.

Considerations, cont'd: Furthermore, I've never heard a good explanation for #1 above. I once read a very well-written, angry blog post from a biker about the evils and ignorance of drivers and the glorious innocence of bikers. I wish I could find it now and give you the link. But alas, when I read it years ago, nothing inside me was inspired to bookmark it... Anyway, the writer basically said, "Drivers, when you start obeying traffic laws, so will we." What? Are you kidding me? First of all, imagine a society in which a group of people approaches a law as something they only have to obey if some other group obeys some other law. Secondly, as noted above, we drivers don't know all the laws about bikes on the road--but you certainly know the laws of a red light. Finally, the more you break blatant laws of the road, the more we detest your presence there.

Well, I expect some controversy, if any of my readers are cyclists. That being said, let's keep it friendly (well, to whatever meager standard of friendliness I've set) as we explore:

• Whether as a cyclist or a driver, what has been your experience of sharing the road?

From theclipartwizard.com... photo credits are stupid.

Point/Counterpoint: traffic merging

Friends (soon-to-be enemies?),

There are obviously a lot of contentious situations and passionate opinions in the world of traffic. Today we talk about one that might top them all: the appropriateness of the 'late merge' (or as it's called on angry internet forums --I really found some-- the 'selfish merge').

You may not recognize the scenario from those phrases alone. I refer to the situation in which, on a highway, road work has caused a lane to close. For the sake of simplicity, picture two lanes being reduced to one lane. A sign reads "Right lane closed in 1.5 miles". Many drivers, motivated by some bizarre reflex to respond to things instantaneously, immediately get over to the left lane. Soon everyone has done this and the left lane is bumper-to-bumper while the right lane is wide open for 1.5 miles.

Some drivers, surely in the minority, see the wide open right lane and 'zoom up' to the merge point and try to 'butt in' to the line of standstill traffic. You might be mad just thinking about it. You may want to hurt that selfish, rude, inconsiderate driver. But here's the thing-- he's right. You're wrong.

The Biggest Misunderstanding in Driving
I think the biggest in pronunciation might be 'mischievous'

Dumb Person: Ugh!! I can't stand those worthless, pathetic, arrogant, ignorant, deplorable, abhorrent, loathsome, scum of the earth, ugly, poorly educated drivers who zoom up and try to merge in right at the merge point.

Me: I do that every single time. Without exception.

DP: Are you serious? Dude, that's low. I can't stand drivers like you.

Me: Drivers who merge at a merge point? Have you ever contemplated the phrase 'merge point'?

DP: No!! Don't even try to convince me! I will not budge on this! You're wrong and I hate you! Plus, don't act like a little word trickery changes the reality of the situation on the road.

Me: Ok, no more word trickery. But how about the fact that we are all supposed to use both lanes until the merge point?

DP: I'll believe that when I see a sign telling me.

Photo evidence:

DP: I've seen what you can do with Microsoft Paint. I'm not convinced that's an actual sign.

More photo evidence:

 



 

Me: These signs are used consistently at such road work sites all over Pennsylvania.

 

DP: Okay that looks vaguely familiar, but I almost never see them personally. When there's no such sign, how are people supposed to know that? It's not like announcements are made to the public to tell us.

 

Me: Well there was that one time that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that "PennDOT has issued an advisory urging motorists who approach restricted work zones to use all open lanes to the designated merge point." And I recall Jim Struzzi, spokesman for said Dept. of Transportation, stating that "failure to [use both lanes til the merge point] is already causing major challenges for motorists on I-79."

 

DP: They're wrong! What I'm doing would never make traffic worse.

 

Me: They're the department of transportation.

 

DP: More like wrongsportation.

 

Me: Good one. But the thing makes sense. Suppose there is a gridlock of traffic. If done properly at the merge point, let's suppose this would cause 2 miles of backed up traffic prior to the merge point. But if everyone hurries over to the one lane 1.5 miles early, then you have traffic backed up 3.5 miles before the road work. All you've done is back the process up earlier on the road. Why is this bad? Because there might be entrance ramps onto the interstate in those earliest 1.5 miles! This now creates another turn-taking point and backs the traffic up even more!

 

DP: Well this is all well and good theoretically. But I'm not talking about weighing the merits of reality against some imaginary best-case scenario in which everyone uses both lanes. I'm specifically talking about the real world, in which it's only you and a handful of other drivers zooming up. Stop doing it.

 

Me: I can't and I won't. Listen. There are signs posted saying to use both lanes. The local papers reported we should use both lanes. The Dept. of Transportation issued an advisory that we should use both lanes. Minnesota's same Dept. says that "research shows that [dangerous lane switching, serious crashes and road rage] decrease when motorists use both lanes."

 

DP: Are you seriously quoting new evidence during closing statements?

 

Me: Yes! When traffic signs, the paper, the DoT, and research all tell me to do something, I do it. I'm sorry you're not also doing it. If you and the other haters would join me, together we could reduce accidents, shorten traffic jams, and be happier.

 

DP: Don't confuse me with the facts. I have a closed mind.

 

 

Come with me if you want to live

Or at least get places faster

 

Are you ready to join me, zooming ahead in the open lane all the way to the merge point?

 

Where do you fall on this intense issue?

 

Has anyone just now seen the light of the late merge?

 

Jon

an easy (traf)fix

Friends,

I have very little to say that isn't already found in the picture I've made.  A few notes about reading the picture:

• Read it from right to left.
• I'm not a Microsoft Paint expert.  I couldn't find a way to rotate rectangles in any way other than 90º.  So please ignore the cars that appear to be dangerously crooked as they go around the bend in the highway.
• There wasn't a good photo size option available, so if you can't zoom in and read the version below, here's the readable facebook version.

Solution: move that sign somewhere BEFORE the exit.

Jon