Right On

The SF Board of Supevisors voted unanimously at their board meeting on October 3 to recommend instituting no right turn on red (NTOR) throughout the City. This resolution means the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which oversees transportation regulation, then has 120 days to decide whether or how to implement this into law. Although the Board resolution is the widening of NTOR from just the Tenderloin, which has had NTOR for some years, SFMTA may choose to extend NTOR in a limited way rather than completely throughout the City. Exactly who is affected by NTOR if implemented—all motor vehicles, buses, taxis, bicycles—is also SFMTA’s purview.

Other than in a few places in the US such as New York City, Washington DC, and Cambridge, MA, NTOR is uncommon although it is very common elsewhere in the world. Turning on red actually started—or at least gained wide traction—here in California many years ago and eventually became a standard practice in the US. We take it for granted that making a right turn at a red light is common sense. Why waste gasoline and time idling at the light when a right turn affects no one else and may help to speed up traffic and reduce congestion? When I’ve cycled in countries such as Japan where NTOR has been and is the law, it feels absurd to sit at a light and not turn (left in Japan) when there is no traffic. But I know this is because I’m not used to it.

I am a traffic law martinet. There are very few traffic laws I ignore when cycling; for example, I’m one of the rare cyclists to stop at stop signs. I’ve even been run into from behind by cyclists who just presumed that I would ignore the stop sign and ride through it. But I can rightfully be called a scofflaw for rolling through stop signs and even red lights when I am turning right here at home.

The reason why the Supes voted for NTOR is because it’s more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. Often motorists make that right turn when it is NOT safe hitting pedestrians in the crosswalk or right-hooking cyclists. This is especially dangerous when it’s a truck making the turn.

When this is finally codified in city law there is sure to be an adjustment period since everyone is habituated to turning right on red and will need to be informed constantly not to do so anymore. Will there be signs at every lighted intersection? That’s a lot of signs to install! Furthermore we’ll all have to remember that SF is now the exception and as soon as we cross from Oakland, Marin, or San Mateo into the City, we will have to drive differently. Will there actually be traffic enforcement or will this be just another instance of legal virtue signaling? [pun intended]

Traffic statistics show pretty conclusively that NTOR leads to a reduction in pedestrian and cyclist deaths and injuries. So it’s probably a good thing although how that’s going to play out with SF being essentially an ‘island’ of NTOR is yet to be seen. There are always unforeseen consequences and how people react to this new law is not entirely predictable. A combination of ped/cyclists presuming drivers will respect NTOR and drivers forgetting about NTOR in SF is going to be a heady brew.

Of course completely ignored in the public discussion is cyclists’ behavior to NTOR. Although cyclists are not motor vehicles we are considered as having the rights and responsibilities of motor vehicles under the vehicle code. Unless the SFMTA makes an explicit exception for cyclists, we are going to have to stop and wait at red lights to make a right turn just like motorists.

The two governing principles cyclists in SF abide by are: (1) will I get killed? and (2) can I get away with it? Lights and stop signs are given lip service only to be ignored at the next intersection. As long as they can get away with it. I don’t expect that to change with NTOR. If there is no exception for cyclists, I predict we are going to see the vast majority of cyclists ignore this new law except when a cop is present.

There is an elementary school that I ride by very often and it has a traffic light directly in front of it. It’s a four-way cross, ie. all traffic stops to let pedestrians (= children) cross in any direction. The city installed NTOR warning signs. Apparently the four-way stop lights are not sufficient and crossing guards staff the intersection during school opening and closing. One of them was hit and killed by a motorist a couple of years ago while he was protecting a child crossing the street.

The stop lights at this school are activated by pushing any of the beg buttons. To stay on the bike route you have to turn right at the light, and Roger and I are the only cyclists who respect that sign and stop even when there is ‘no good reason’ to do so. Every cyclist we have ever encountered there has ignored that sign. (We’ve seen an occasional motorist also drive through!) So I don’t expect cyclists are going to respect any new law either.

Cyclists are gonna do what cyclists gonna do. So whether there is an exception made is hardly relevant to actual behavior. Given that California cyclists have been advocating for stop-as-yield (which is how stop signs are treated by cyclists in real life anyway), it’s laughable to expect cyclists to stop and wait at red lights before turning.

Just be prepared for some slight chaos and maybe some motorist blowback as well.

Of more relevance to the club is: will ride leaders respect this law on club rides? It’s really bad form for members to skirt the law on official club rides. That’s why official rides involving trail poaching, trespassing, ignoring road closure signs, and yes, running lights or stop signs is not officially sanctioned. What you do in your private life is one thing but what you do on club rides is another. And club liability insurance? Of what help will it be when the facts reveal that a ride leader ignored NTOR and a participant then followed and was struck by a car? I don’t want to see that happen.

But this is America and we all know that traffic laws don’t apply to us when there aren’t cops around.