I followed a vehicle (a small van that looked like a passenger van) yesterday. It had a decal on the back that said that it did not make a right turn on a red light. Why would the owner (this was for a local health-care system) prohibit drivers from turning right on red?
It’s (more) dangerous.
Turining right on red is “unprotected” - if you mis-judge, or don’t see an oncoming car, you can get hit.
Waiting until the light turns green protects you from most of those possibilities.
Buses around here don’t turn ROR either. I assume it’s because it takes them longer to get through the intersection and it may be difficult to see if someone is coming from the left once the bus is mid-turn.
Well, it shields the vehicle/business owner from the liability associated with an employee making the decision that a turn is OK.
It’s also very discretionary, so for a business in particular, it might be a way of limiting liability.
Ninja’d.
That’s not how vicarious liability works. The employer would still likely be liable for an accident caused by the driver.
I’m not the one you responded to, but my post in a similar vein wasn’t meant to say that the company would be absolved if the driver turned anyway. The point was that you don’t have to turn, but if you do decide to, and there’s an accident, it will very likely be your fault. So prohibiting it would stop driver’s from doing something they don’t need to do, and which is a source of potential liability.
Is the U.S. the only country that allows, with some exceptions, right on red? I’ve always understood it to be permitted for the driver, that is, the driver can decide if they want to turn right on red. The driver has no obligation to turn right on red.
And the people honking at the person who does not want to turn red are being rude. So maybe the company is trying to help their drivers by putting such a decal, in addition to making the rule.
No, it’s something that’s allowed in multiple countries in the Americas, but not in every location within those countries.
I find it interesting (for lack of a better word) that nobody has mentioned the possibility of pedestrians. That American drivers are so unused to those strange people is one of the things that makes being one in the US very dangerous.
valid point, nava … and exactly the reason i logged in. aside from pedestrians, plenty of other concerns to be cautious … and for companies to not allow their drivers the ror convenience. skateboards 'n scooters 'n bicycles 'n pedestrians 'n wheelchairs … valid reasons for a company to disallow it. doesn’t matter if the driver turning operates a 72 passenger school bus or a motorcycle himself.
as to those waiting behind … they’re just being self-centered egomaniacs. turning ror is not required.
fwiw … straightdope.com hosts another older thread:
School bus right turn on red Q - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
Here in China, right on red is allowed.
However, one effect is that drivers turning right barely slow down, since it doesn’t matter whether their light is green or red. And on a green light they may weave around, at speed, pedestrians trying to cross the perpendicular street.
So the rule was changed this year such that you can turn right, but if it’s an actual pedestrian crossing, and there is anyone crossing, you must wait (regardless of whether you think there is a gap). It’s made things a lot safer.
But yeah, right on red in China.
Over here ‘Left’ on red is totally prohibited. Some junctions have a green arrow to allow left turns when straight on is still red, but in the absence of that, we stay put and wait. I believe this rule applies right across Europe.
The rule seems to be very risky to me anyway.
In the 70s the US started going nationwide with right turn on red. It took a while as one state at a time converted, but not throughout the state all the time. Many large cities didn’t allow right on red, in NYC it was only allowed if there was a sign permitting it. Where it is allowed there are plenty of ‘No Right Turn on Red’ signs, and they are routinely ignored. I’m not sure how the left turn on green arrow thing is spreading, many states allowed left turns when the main light was green and had an arrow also, then some began to change that.
Not my experience, in California during the 20th century. (Are California drivers much different now than they were 30 years ago?)
“Joke”: One thing California driving and Thailand driving have in common is that ***pedestrian crossings are completely ignored:
[ul][li] In California the pedestrian always has the right of way. Start to cross anywhere, even without crossing marks, and traffic will come to a halt.[/li][li] In Thailand the pedestrian never has the right of way. An oncoming car won’t even slow down, with or without crossing marks; you’re risking death to cross.[/li][/ul]
The last state was Massachusetts, which allowed it in 1980. Yeah, it’s so expected now that in a few cases where it really needs to be prevented they have to put up about a half dozen warnings. There’s a good example in Cupertino, CA. If you take the Stevens Creek exit off 85 north bound, at the junction with the street, there is another street entering the intersection to your immediate right only about 20 feet away from you joining at a very acute angle to you, and obscured by shrubbery until you are right on top of the intersection. It is an exit from the DeAnza college campus, and it gets a green light to cross Stevens Creek and get on 85 when you have the red.
It completely depends upon the period of development of the area. Downtown L.A. and Hollywood were developed when pedestrians and street cars were just as dominant as cars. As a result, even today the urban design there instills in drivers an awareness of pedestrians. Century City, as well as most suburban malls, on the other hand, were developed to promote vehicle egress, so when you walk into places like that, you do indeed feel like an alien.
Same in Colombia. Pedestrians there may not be alien, but they still are fair game for vehicle hunting.
A passenger van for a health care organization? It sounds like a vehicle that transports people to and from their appointments with their care professionals. People that, while mobile are possibly ill, frail or elderly. People that would appreciate a smooth, uneventful ride. It’s not unthinkable that the operators of such a service may forbid their drivers from turning right on red to help accomplish this. Right-on-red turns can often be rather abrupt due to the need to execute the maneuver quickly and merge with flowing traffic. By forbidding this outright, they are removing a temptation for the driver and not only improving the safety for the passengers but also their comfort.
I should have specified Northern California. Or, better yet, the Southwestern part of Northifornia!
(With sharp linguistic and cultural differences, and even divergent driving policies, California really should be split up into multiple states! 
)
In both South Korea and China, right on red is permitted. According to the law, the driver must come to a full stop before making the right turn. In practice in both countries, they don’t even touch the brake.
You must not live in Beijing. There is no weaving. There is just barrelling through and if you’re a pedestrian, you’d better be quick or you’ll be dead.
Actually, in California, it’s not the case that the pedestrian always has the right of way. I got ticketed for causing an accident while jaywalking (funny thing was my buddy was the one driving the pickup that hit me). Luckily, it wasn’t that serious an accident.
A few years ago some friends from Spain travelled to Seattle for a business trip. Their ultimate destination was Portland and I offered to drive them down so we could catch up. As we drove around downtown Portland they were a bit surprised that the drivers (including me) were so courteous towards pedestrians. It was nothing out of the ordinary in my experience, but according to them drivers in Madrid were much less concerned with pedestrian safety. Don’t know if it’s true though.