Q: Why don’t some drivers ever take their free right on red? It’s frustrating sitting there behind someone when they could just go.

A: I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the people reading this question are cheering you on. I am not one of them. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not entirely opposed to the right turn on red. It’s more the attitude I’m not agreeing with.

I’ll explain myself in a moment, but first, a bit about how we got here. The Right Turn on Red has been around for a long time in some parts of the country, but it didn’t become a national institution until the 1970s. The energy crisis prompted the federal government to tie highway funding to energy conservation. One of the conservation requirements was reducing idling for a few seconds by permitting drivers to make a right turn on a red light.

The Federal Highway Administration sponsored a study that predicted that the increase in RTOR-related crashes would be small. Did that sentence alarm you? Yep, they knew the RTOR law would increase crashes, and they made it a requirement for funding. That’s an indication of where our traffic safety priorities were in the 1970s. Also, it turns out that the study was wrong. Crashes increased by 37%; a rate more than three times greater than what was predicted. Pedestrian and cyclist-involved crashes were even higher.

The Revised Code of Washington states that drivers “may” make a right turn after stopping. Drivers must “allow other vehicles lawfully within or approaching the intersection to complete their movements” and “remain stopped for pedestrians.” I emphasized the “may” part to point out that this is optional. If you don’t feel comfortable making a right turn on a red light at a particular intersection, you’re under no obligation to do so.

A growing number of cities across the country are considering or implementing No Turn on Red rules. In Seattle, NTOR is the default for any new or modified traffic signal. In 2018 Washington D.C. selected 100 intersections for NTOR implementation. Their pilot study showed a 97% reduction in vehicle-to-vehicle conflict and a 92% reduction in failure to yield to pedestrians.

Why are cities adopting NTOR rules, rather than states making it a law? I can’t say for sure, but it is more of an urban problem than a rural one. On rural roads pedestrian traffic is minimal and the gaps between cars are usually big. In contrast, here’s a typical RTOR crash scenario in a city: a driver at a red light looks both ways to check for pedestrians, and then spends a long time looking left for a gap in traffic; long enough for a pedestrian to approach and enter the crosswalk. Once the driver spots a gap they jump into it, forgetting to look right again, and hit the pedestrian.

Notice that even though the initial question referred to a “free right on red” I haven’t used that term. That right turn is not free. It has a benefit (a few seconds saved) and costs (increased crash risk, especially for vulnerable road users). Is RTOR the greatest existential threat to humanity? No. And its biggest downside can be solved by being patient. Therein lies the problem. RTOR is a shortcut that feeds our impatience.

If someone chooses not to engage in a legally allowed (but not required) traffic movement that is known to increase crashes by nearly 40%, pedestrian-involved crashes by nearly 60%, and bicyclist crashes by over 70%, take a breath and let them make that choice.

Doug Dahl writes a weekly column for this newspaper. He is with the state Traffic Safety Commission.