City set to place ‘no turn on red’ signs at 97 downtown intersections

30 thoughts on “City set to place ‘no turn on red’ signs at 97 downtown intersections”

1. What a joke.

   Log in to Reply

   1. I don’t think the people that have been hit or killed are laughing.

   2. This is absolutely the right thing to do.

2. This is the same city government that can’t be bothered to lay down proper crosswalk markings – the characteristic bright white rectangles recognized the world over as a crosswalk. Throughout downtown, they are either faded or, worse, replaced by Cultural Trail curlicue patterns featuring the names of rich people, and these are themselves almost all now faded out and a danger to pedestrians. But yeah, let’s address safety by making it harder and harder to drive downtown, because cars bad. Genius!

   Log in to Reply

   1. I’m downtown every day,. Are you?

      This is a badly-needed action. Harder for drivers? Small price to pay–good drivers won’t care.

   2. I’m a good driver. I care. I live and work downtown. Your comments reveal the anti-car agenda – stupid for Indianapolis, a car city. See: Canals, Indiana bankruptcy, misplaced transportation bet.

   3. You are the first “downtown person” I’ve met that objects to this. It’s not anti-car…it’s pro-safety. What’s your hurry?

3. To add to Thomas comment – “The recently-passed city ordinance behind the turn restrictions aims to decrease the amount of pedestrians and cyclists hit by drivers.” Was it ever reported how many “tragic” accidents and “horrendous” injuries this ordinance will prevent!? (sarcasm intended) I have never seen any numbers or statistics. Not to mention it only got passed when the council found out they could pass it in June ahead of the law enactment date, what a bunch of children, our tax dollars being totally wasted!!

   Log in to Reply

   1. More than 50% of vehicle pedestrian collisions were from right turn on red incidents, so this is a data driven decision.

      This is the same kind of analysis that resulted in cars with seatbelts and airbags. You look at the data and then based on the data you come up with solutions.

   2. These facts have been well-reported. It’s a good decision.

4. With the level of homicides in this town, I am pretty sure the police have better things to do than ticket motorist for making right hand turns on red! And if this all they have to do, then the priorities may not be very well defined!

   I saw a guy run a red light (by at least 3 Mississippi’s) at Meridian and South Street west bound. Police officer sitting at light, 1st car, looking at his computer and didn’t even see him run the light.

   When they get done with their foolishness, Indianapolis will still have horrible roads, grid lock and undrivable routes due to bike lanes, red lines, blue lines, parking lanes in the middle of the street and those streetscapes.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Indianapolis does not have gridlock. Please look up definition gridlock. Gridlock does not mean heavy traffic, or slow traffic, or congestion.

      Yes, some people disobey the law. They run red lights, they turn right on red, they kill people. And, it’s just not Indianapolis. And perhaps the officer was doing required work on his computer.

      Bear in mind, right turn on red has not always and forever been allowed. In some cases, it is fine and in others, it is not.

      No, one does not expect police officers to focus their time on ticketing those turning right on red. But they may.

      Why not seek safer environments for pedestrians, certainly in areas where foot traffic can be high. So a vehicle must wait 20 sec at a signal — that is OK.

      How are streets ‘undrivable?’ Maybe a tax increase to pave roadways more frequently would help. If the allocation formula did not favor rural roads (with little traffic nonetheless), perhaps all cities in Indiana would have better pavement.

      Is there a street shortage? Pedestrian and bicyclist are part of mobility and deserve space as well. For those who adhere to the speed limit, one can travel just fine along all streets, but option exist: Red Line — parallel streets such as Illinois, Capitol, Pennsylvania, Central, College; Purple Line — parallel streets such as 30th, 34th, 42nd, 46th; future Blue Line — New York, Michigan, 10th, English. And for those in a big rush, I-70 and I-65 offer plenty of lanes without bicycles, signals, or pedestrians.

   2. Maybe if people knew how to use the crosswalk signals instead of trying to cross the street when it is flashing “don’t walk”. Amazes me the number of people in this city who completely ignore crosswalk signals.

5. Change for the safety of our citizens should be heralded as a good thing, not “a joke”. You criticize because there are not enough surface markings at crosswalks. Others criticize because pedestrians are being injured in crosswalks. Every issue gets its day–maybe yours will be addressed next. Patience, people.

   Log in to Reply

6. Stop looking for the bad in everything in this world.

   Log in to Reply

7. Can we get 97 No Loitering signs strategically place downtown to get the homeless off the sidewalks?

   Log in to Reply

8. Hiss! Boo! Stupid. It won’t fix the problem. Get parked cars out of the middle of the streets.

   Log in to Reply

9. California was the first State to allow right turn on red for two reasons,; to reduce traffic congestion and to reduce air pollution from idling cars. The idea was quicly adapted across the country. But now we feel that we need to slow up trafficeven more downtown and increase unnecessary car idling. The vast majority of people still drive to get downtown. Making driving less convenient will decrease trips to downtown.

   Log in to Reply

   1. California has WAY more people than Indiana…Indianapolis has little to no traffic. If you’re upset about the city looking out for the safety of pedestrians then maybe you’ve got other weird stuff going on in your life.

10. Yes this is a waste of money because it will not stop people from turning on red. No turn on red and no one way streets sounds like they are trying to create more traffic which will frustrate people and lead to more accidents. How about spending money on putting in sidewalks outside of the downtown area if we are concerned about pedestrian safety. There are plenty of areas in center township alone with no sidewalks and practically no sidewalks in all the other townships. At least put them on streets with a decent amount of traffic.

    Log in to Reply

    1. If you’re frustrated by waiting another few seconds at a light…you’.re part of the problem. Bigly.

11. Will not solve the problem. Cars are going faster turning on green while pedestrians walk across a red.
    Going from a stop on red to turning on red (while a pedestrian is conceivably walking across a green) is much less likely to cause a serious injury/fatality from the car turning on red.

    Log in to Reply

    1. Exactly

    2. Minus the data saying otherwise….

       I love when people think they’re smarter than facts and data. This is the issue with the social media society. Everyone thinks their opinion matters

    3. JJ Frankie J – drive downtown and seriously take a moment to think about it as you are actually interacting with intersections real time. It’s not difficult to figure out.

12. Freeman gets caught with his pants down. How embarrassing for him! Finally common sense prevails for once.

    Log in to Reply

13. But they don’t even enforce the ones that already exist downtown?

    Log in to Reply

14. I’ve personally almost been hit 3 times while running downtown with the right of way and the pedestrian light on. I’m all for it, it’s just another item I can use when I sue the moron who finally hits me into oblivion.

    If you’re complaining about this, I’m just going to assume you complain about a lot of things in life and this is just another log on your personal grievance fire.

    Log in to Reply

15. Given that the no-turn-on-red policy was lifted in the 1970s during the oil crisis, when idling cars in downtown areas burned more fuel and fuel was precious, it would be interesting to see if the lifting of the restrictions caused a sudden upsurge in pedestrian deaths. If so, I can see a compelling case for this.

    Then again, in the 1970s, most downtowns (including India-no-place) were dead a doornail, so there might not have been much concern for pedestrians, because there were none.

    Huge contrast with today. Well, with 2019, at least. As of 2023 Indianapolis has now been voted in the bottom 10 in terms of a post-COVID recovery of its pedestrian traffic…only slightly better than the riot-prone Minneapolis. Does MPLS have right-turn-on-red restrictions? Are there examples where this has shown a causal relation to a reduction in pedestrian deaths?

    I’m not going to surrender to the notion that “Indy is a car city” because car-filled downtowns generally do suck. But I’m also hesitant to embrace laws for the sake of laws.

    Log in to Reply

    1. If the residents of Indianapolis hate the law, they can vote for someone like Jefferson Shreve who can make it a campaign promise to bring back right turn on red.

       Or Aaron Freeman can run for mayor himself, or return to the CCC, if he wants to affect change.

       Freeman’s attempt to use a law at the state level to target Indianapolis to prohibit this change was dumb and poorly written and it brings me great joy that he failed in what he was trying to do.

       Maybe his constituents should consider his ineptitude in the next election and choose another candidate … then again, he’s in a district gerrymandered so well that it’s practically impossible for him to lose.

       Given that most Indiana residents are either fleeing the state or moving to the Indianapolis area, maybe the state legislators from the decaying parts of Indiana should realize that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Maybe let the folks from Indianapolis or Carmel or Fishers or Avon or Greenwood lead and just sit there quietly and be grateful they share tax revenue with you.