[AmpsterMan]

I've spoken to my friends on how right-on-red is one of the most anti-pedestrian rules of the street that exist. It was like pulling nails trying to convince them that the added convenience for motorists is not worth the increased danger to pedestrians... I live in the city, they in the suburbs. It's not that they are uncaring (well, not directly) it is just that for many people, imagining a lifestyle different from theirs is very difficult.

I'm convinced that North America will only get its act together when gasoline reaches $9.00/gal. Only then will middle class folks start looking toward city living and only then will we get any appreciable progress in city life. I only hope that we reach that point BEFORE the climate catastrophe worsens beyond repair. The fracking boom doesn't have me very confident of this.

[OfSanguineFire]

> I'm convinced that North America will only get its act together when gasoline reaches $9.00/gal.

What if North America successfully moves from petrol-powered cars to electric ones, and autonomous vehicles get rolled out, and in the end the sprawling development and the reliance on vehicles remains just as entrenched?

[impendia]

I live in Columbia, SC -- a place that is surprisingly pedestrian-friendly but where there is little awareness of this. I walk to most places I go -- decidedly unusual here.

I would actually defend right-on-red. Indeed, when I do drive, I get annoyed by all the "no turn on red" signs which slow things down.

In my estimation, the problem (locally, anyway) is cultural: drivers don't think to look, or else they feel entitled to turn first even if I'm crossing already and they think they can squeeze by faster. Convince these drivers to care about pedestrians, and to yield when legally required to, and you've solved the problem.

[TheBigSalad]

You sound frustrated that you couldn't convince your friend of something so obvious. But you realize most people are both pedestrians and motorists, and still overwhelmingly prefer right on red.