Can’t read the article due to paywall so gotta fly blind with this one. Isn’t it arguably better for pedestrians for a car to turn right on red when safe? I’m sure there are cases I am not thinking of, but how about this seemingly common scenario:

Pedestrians get a walk signal whenever parallel car traffic has a green light. And the inverse is true; when perpendicular traffic has a green, pedestrians get a hand to stop. So if I am in a car and turn right on a red light, aren’t I crossing a pedestrian crossing with a big stop hand on it? There shouldn’t even be pedestrians there, right? Wouldn’t a pedestrian that is crossing while I turn right on red actually be crossing against the signal? I understand as I turn right on red I am concentrating left and so not giving pedestrians as many looks, but shouldn’t they be staying put anyway?

Instead, if I can’t turn right on red, and I have to wait until my green, I am now competing with pedestrians that now have a cross signal. Seems worse doesn’t it? Or am I missing something?

This exact thing just happened at a new “no turn on red” sign on Packard and Carpenter. I waited there at the red light like a good boy, then it turned green and wouldn’t you know it, a pedestrian crossed at that exact time when their signal said go… I would have already been out of the way because cross traffic had tons of gaps, but instead I waited and now have to wait some more, burning the green light for me and everyone behind me. In this case while I waited for the first one, another pedestrian wheeled up and took the crossing and delayed it further.

There was additional risk to the pedestrians, less efficient use of the intersection, impatient (and so more reckless) drivers behind me. I give the experience a 2 out of 10.