[SDCBC] Why you should look both ways.................

[keli.dailey at uniontrib.com]

Does anyone have news about a potential fatality from last month's
Critical Mass?

________________________________

From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org
[mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org] On Behalf Of Eric Converse
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 10:02 AM
To: j.eldon at sbcglobal.net; Jon Perkins; SDCBC at bikesandiego.org; Gene
Carman
Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Why you should look both ways.................


Why not make right turns on red illegal?  They are in all of the
European Union (unless stated otherwise on a sign) and in Montreal.

Or, why not a full stop in every direction (especially, where there is a
high density of ped/cycle traffic like near the 56 path).  Can't this be
done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_turn_on_red

Eric


----- Original Message ----
From: John Eldon <j.eldon at sbcglobal.net>
To: Jon Perkins <admin7 at cox.net>; SDCBC at bikesandiego.org; Gene Carman
<gcarman at san.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 9:08:32 AM
Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Why you should look both ways.................


I have two recommendations to make walking (and occasionally cycling,
such as in this mis-engineered case) safer: 1) permit right turn on red
from the curb lane only, never from additional right turn only or right
turn optional lanes; 2) deploy more red right arrows.

John E.

--- On Wed, 7/2/08, Gene Carman <gcarman at san.rr.com> wrote:


	Consider this, there is never a safe controlled time that a
cyclist can leave the 56 bike path at those intersections to cross the
street to the rest of the bike path.  
	
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080702/ba72f0af/attachment-0001.html