Earlier this month, the District of Columbia voted to significantly restrict the single greatest American contribution to motoring – turning right on a red light. Local news channel WUSA9 reports that the bill still requires mayoral signing and congressional review, and even if it gets through those steps, it won’t take effect until 2025. Still, turning right on a red light has been a mainstay of American driving for decades and offers some significant advantages.
Since turning right on a red light is far from a universal experience, here’s how it works in much of America: Flick on your right indicator, come to a complete stop, ensure no signs indicate that you can’t turn right on a red light, yield to pedestrian and vehicle traffic, then proceed when safe to do so. Pretty simple, right?
Opponents of turning right on red lights cite pedestrian safety, and they do have a point. Speaking with local news channel WTOP, councilmember Mary Cheh said that after right turns on red lights were prohibited at 100 intersections, “There were far fewer conflicts between cars and people, more cars yielding for pedestrians and generally safer conditions.” While drivers turning right focus on traffic coming from the left, pedestrians are free to cross with the light from the right, creating a path-of-travel interference.
As a Canadian, I should note that there used to be a time not too long ago when it was illegal to turn right on a red light anywhere in the Canadian province of Quebec. In 2003, traffic laws were amended to permit right turns on red lights virtually everywhere in Quebec save for on the island of Montreal and a few prohibited intersections. CTV News reports that in the decade that followed, being able to turn right on red lights led to six deaths and 30 serious injuries. Being able to turn right on a red light seems to have a human cost, but it’s just not that simple.
First off, that data set from Quebec may be skewed due to the introduction of a new driving concept. An earlier report from 2010 states that in the six years after legalizing right turns on red lights, five fatalities and 30 serious injuries occurred while vehicles were turning right on a red light. This means that from mid-way through 2009 until 2013, one death and zero serious injuries occurred while vehicles were turning right on red lights.
Then there’s a matter of why America implemented right-turn on red permissions in the first place. See, the American government initially recommended implementing right-turn on red permission to save fuel. The Department of Energy says that turning right on red saves between 1 and 4.6 seconds of a driver’s time compared to waiting for a green light. That may seem inconsequential, but it really adds up over the millions of right turns made every day. In addition, combustion-powered vehicles get their worst fuel economy when idling — after all, if your engine’s on and you’re not moving, you’re literally getting zero mpg.
UPS knows this, so the courier company adjusts driver routes to primarily take right turns. Boston.com reports that in 2007, UPS saved 3.1 million gallons of fuel and prevented 32,000 metric tons of emissions by optimizing routes for right turns. That’s a lot of carbon dioxide and other nasty pollutants not pumped into the atmosphere thanks to turning right on red lights. While not every death due to air pollution is caused exclusively by vehicle emissions, it’s reported that more than 100,000 Americans die from air pollution every single year. It’s not just a simple open-and-shut case of saying that turning right on red lights is killing people because idling also kills people. The human cost of air pollution isn’t nearly as visible as tarps on crosswalks, and we just don’t have enough data to say which is more harmful.
[Editor’s Note: I frequently travel to Germany, where right-on-red is prohibited. It’s a bit maddening, but then, they have traffic circles instead of stop signs, plus they have unlimited-speed highways, so in the end I think it’s a wash. I’ll also note that, having driven in Washington D.C. quite a lot during my college days (I drove from Charlottesville to see a girl in Georgetown for a year or so), I know that Washington D.C. driving is horrible. It’s the only place where I literally had to beg someone to let me into a lane (they bargained with me, saying they’d do it if I gave them directions). In any case, it’s a small city, it’s a traffic-ridden city, it’s a pedestrian-laden town — I don’t really think this no-right-on-red thing is too huge of a deal in this particular place. But that’s just one person’s opinion. -DT]
Will DC voting to limit drivers’ ability to turn right on red lights trigger a wave of cities restricting right turns on red lights? It’s possible. The District of Columbia’s decision comes as part of Vision Zero, an initiative that started in Sweden with a goal of eliminating all traffic deaths. While many cities have taken a shining to Vision Zero, the end goal likely isn’t feasible, and Vision Zero’s fatality reduction targets have a hit-or-miss track record. Under Vision Zero principles, Sweden committed in 1998 to having fewer than 270 road fatalities in 2007. The actual number of fatalities on Swedish roads in 2007 was 471.
Being able to turn right on a red light when safe is a useful tool in reducing congestion and energy consumption. It’s also not perfect, as it does present a path conflict. However, under most circumstances, the benefits appear to outweigh the downsides. As ever, the best solution is better driver training, although given how resistant America is to that idea, it likely won’t happen any time soon.
The city I work in has recently gone to town with Four Way Stop Intersections. It’s actually made commuting a bit easier (Other than drivers than have no idea how to handle them).
*Cough cough* roundabouts *cough cough*
Indeed I suspect replacing a lot of all way stop signs with mini roundabouts would easily make up the time savings quoted in the article. Not having to come to a complete stop everytime would save on emissions too as I suspect moving off from a complete stop uses more gas than from rolling at 5mph?
I hope it really is about the pedestrian safety, but some cities make more revenue with more no turn on red signs too. There’s a few cities near me that seem to intentionally put the sign behind the point of the turn so that you can’t see it when you are making a turn and then the police will frequently sit just out of sight. If they are “feeling nice” they will knock it down to an impeding traffic ticket with no points and a $185 fine, instead of a $250 fine and 3 points.
When I’m box truckin’ down in Boston, I basically drive in constant fear of squashing (or heck, even gently bumping—I’m in a company vehicle and that could easily cost me my job) a pedestrian or cyclist. I am well aware that a very common mode of car-on-bicycle collision comes from drivers not checking the bike lane before making a right, and when the car in question is a 20,000 pound box truck, the consequences of such an error are as horrible as they are predictable.
I always check to make sure the path is clear, and sometimes if there’s just too much going on I simply won’t make a right on red. It’s not actually compulsory, after all—it’s an optional move that you’re allowed to take if it seems safe to do so, and if I’m in a giant truck with huge blind spots sitting at a busy intersection on a narrow road, and I’m trying to get to my jobsite at the same time as everyone else is trying to get to work and/or school, well, maybe it’s just not safe. The people behind me can honk if they like. Fuck ’em. They can wait the 45 seconds for the light to turn green.
Halftrack, thank you for your careful driving and respect. A family member was killed just outside DC last month when a box truck turned right across her bike lane without taking due care (to put it mildly).
TIL: that the green arrow signs on traffic signals that allow me to turn right on red in southerm Germany are apparently fake or figments of my imagination…..
Its not common to turn right on red in Germany, but it is not universally illegal.
Note that UPS did not change their routes just to save fuel, but to save time and lives too. Left turns take more time irrespective of RTOR, as well as being far more dangerous due to crossing oncoming traffic.
To quote the Boston.com article:
“It saves fuel and reduces emissions by minimizing the length of time our trucks are idling. And it’s safer too, because you don’t have to cross traffic.
With left turns more time is spent idling while waiting for oncoming traffic, and right-on-red regulations also help save fuel.”
Arlington VA is already doing this and I find that now I have to share the crosswalk with pedestrians EVERY TIME I make a right turn. The DC politician who said the opposite probably doesn’t actually drive a car.
It’s bad enough that I now completely ignore the no-turn-on-red signs.
As a former New Yorker, I grew up without right on red and fully grokked the Annie Hall quote dissing LA
“I don’t want to move to a city where the only cultural advantage is being able to make a right turn on a red light”
Now I live in Oregon land of the 4 way stop and I still dislike LA and have made so few right turns on red in the last month that I could do without it.
As a driver, I definitely like (and plan for) right on red, but as a city resident whose family walks a LOT, I’d be willing to give it up for the safety factor.
That said, I think I’d prefer a norm where high traffic intersections get scramble cycles (where all cars get reds with no turns while all peds get to cross in any direction) and low traffic ones keep right on red. When traffic is light, it’s easy to check for both cars and walkers, and there’s no sense of rush that you have to GO in a short gap in traffic. Meanwhile, scramble intersections are awesome (have one near my house) for walkers—just go, no worries about careless/hurried drivers—and not really a big inconvenience for drivers.
I can see how pedestrian safety is a big problem. I’ve had a number of instances where I’ve come close to hitting someone crossing the street. It’s always the same story. Car next to me blocks my view of the pedestrians, I pull forward, and suddenly they walk out right in front of me.
There are ways to resolve this issue without outright banning it. Separating crosswalks from the stop line is a good start. Leave two feet between the cross walk lines and the stopping zone, which should provide enough room for the person turning left to see if there are any pedestrians. Something as simple as a mirror attached to the pole could help. Banning it in specific intersections where pedestrian foot traffic is highest is fine too, but I don’t think all intersections should fall under a ban.
If they get rid of “right-on-red” they should also get rid of 4-way stop signs. As someone who grew up and learned how to drive in Europe, it (and the universal lack of yield signs) has been bothering me for almost 2 decades now.
I remember back in the day driving on the other side of the pond through intersections that had no signs of any kind, it was just yield-to-right and everyone abided, mostly without anyone stopping at all.
Otherwise there was either a yield sign and a “main road” sign, and again, you could check traffic while moving, then cross without stopping (this was before roundabouts started to dominate)
4-way stop signs aren’t banned, but I’ve seen more and more converted into stop lights here in SoCal. They always screw up the flow of traffic and cause more problems than they resolve.
So how do they compute that right on red saves less than 5 seconds of waiting? Where I live the red-light cycle is at least 30 seconds often a minute. Second point, the right on red is dangerous because most drivers forgot the first part, that is, AFTER A FULL STOP you may turn right on red. Alas, even stop signs are just a suggestion these days
They probably compute the >5 seconds based on the likelihood you come to the light on green, the end of red, middle of red, or beginning of red, as well as some probability traffic will prevent the right turn. Probably a little unfair to compare right on red to a green, but the same math says that 1-4.5 seconds is 9-30% time savings, which might sound a little better. Things may have also changed since this was studied in the 70s.
NYC: no right turns on red permitted unless noted otherwise, and that’s for all 5 boroughs. I think it works, esp. since NY drivers absolutely suck at following or understanding the rules of the road. All too often when I’m executing a left turn at an intersection, with a traffic arrow, do those making right on reds (a) not stop and just roll on through with their right and (b) think they have the right of way as they are doing such, forcing me and the cars behind me to yield to them, even though we have the green arrow.
Here in Idaho, we are also allowed to make a left turn on red onto a one-way. Not from a one-way onto a one-way. From any road onto a one-way:
“Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver after stopping, facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a highway onto a one-way highway after stopping. Vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.”
We also define “highway” the same as “street,” if anyone needs clarification regarding the above:
“‘Highway’ means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part is open to the use of the public for vehicular travel, with jurisdiction extending to the adjacent property line, including sidewalks, shoulders, berms and rights-of-way not intended for motorized traffic. The term ‘street’ is interchangeable with highway.”
“The human cost of air pollution isn’t nearly as visible as tarps on crosswalks, and we just don’t have enough data to say which is more harmful.”
This is the eternal difficulty with emissions. There’s enough separation between the cause and effect of these deaths that it just doesn’t resonate with most people. If the human and financial consequences of emissions were more immediate I think a lot more people would support extreme measures to reduce them.
When people see someone get hit in a crosswalk they say “Fix it now!” When they see someone die of lung cancer or in a natural disaster caused by greenhouse emissions they shrug and say “Act of God, what can you do?”
The statistics regarding right on red would probably be better if 99% of drivers didn’t ignore these steps in Thomas’ procedure:
come to a complete stop, ensure no signs indicate that you can’t turn right on a red light, yield to pedestrian and vehicle traffic
I can’t remember the last time I witnessed a driver actually stopping at a red light before turning right.
I do it and I always risk being rear ended if I don’t brake and check the intersection and sidewalk incredibly fast before getting out of the way of the person behind me who’s absolutely convinced that the law allows them to sail through the light with barely a pause.
Remember this when you’re crossing the street on foot, kids.
THIS. If drivers actually were coming to a complete stop before turning, they’d be super unlikely to reach a lethal speed before reaching the crosswalk. I too struggle to remember seeing anyone come to a full stop before turning right on red, and have been honked at for doing so.
There are some red light cameras near me in Maryland that can detect and fine rolling right turns on red. Initial implementation was terrible, however, because they failed to warn drivers of these new cameras, and thus printed money for months. So it came off as more of a cash grab than a good faith effort to reduce pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
But if right turn cameras are paired with signs warning drivers to come to a complete stop before turning, otherwise face the consequences, I think it could make a huge difference.
All that said, driving in DC is nuts, and with all the service roads and giant circles and blind corners, right turns on red already aren’t allowed at a huge percentage of intersections. If it works for NYC, why not.
I know I’m running the risk of “victim shaming”, but the recent increase in pedestrian injuries/fatalities can’t all be due to driver inattention. I mean, we’ve been turning right on red in the US for what, 40+ years? Is it possible that some of the pedestrian conflicts with cars are due to inattentive pedestrians? I see plenty of people walking around completely absorbed in their pocket-computers and/or wearing earbuds or full headphones. What are the chances that some of these folks aren’t paying attention to the cars all around them? Pretty good odds, I’d say.
I think you’re right to some extent. A perfect storm–driver inattention, inattentive pedestrians, but also another not-insignificant factor (I’m pretty sure I read this somewhere): the hood and general body designs of modern full-size pickups and larger SUVs are deadlier in collisions with pedestrians.
Like, imagine sliding up and over the wedge hood and windshield of a Prius vs. being hit with the tall, flat front of a Silverado or F-series.
You’re right about that, but I would also include things like side curtain airbags and general automotive design bloat that contributes to it as well. Many of the decisions over the last 20 years to increase automobile safety make it less safe for pedestrians. The greenhouse of visibility in modern cars is ridiculously small because of fat A pillars and extra material to deaden sound. The increased disconnection between drivers and their surroundings is at an all time high.
I hadn’t thought about that but you’re right. Even the side windows are smaller than they used to be – I can’t ride down the street with my elbow hanging out because the “windowsill” is so much higher than it used to be.
How much longer before we just have a tiny bullet-proof viewport like a tank? Or even a periscope?
And there, I actually get to sympathizing with policymakers (not a feeling I get often)….
Which is better: more accidents with less deadly results, or fewer accidents, but each accident is more likely to be deadly?
Way oversimplified, but that’s how I see these thicker, modern pillars.
I’d say they’re all due to the moving 4000+ lbs steel object.
The increases are due to drunk/distracted peds.
I’d say there’s truth to this.
There is one particular neighborhood in my area that has a lot of trouble with pedestrians getting hit, and some of it does have to do with impatient/inattentive drivers. All sorts of traffic-calming things have been done – signalized crosswalks mid-block, removal of parking restrictions, bump outs at intersections, etc. The residents even made flags that are kept at the intersections so pedestrians can wave them around as they cross. My kids have been highly amused by my Interpretive Crosswalk Dance With Orange Flag.
But none of that helps when someone steps out from between parked cars on a rainy night because the protected crosswalk and signal was 50′ further away than she wanted to walk.
It’s also true that a mid-block jaywalk is easier than a crosswalk at a 4-way stop sign, and I often see employees at a local company crossing the street from between vehicles lined up at that stop sign. Using that crosswalk means the pedestrians have to negotiate their opportunity with the drivers who are all watching the other 3 cars and not even thinking about the person on the corner waiting to step out.
I would have given you a thumb just for Interpretive Crosswalk Dance With Orange Flag alone. (For some reason I’m hearing Flock of Seagulls playing in the background)
Nice music choice. In my head it was always something more like a child’s nursery song played on the lowest range of a theater organ but certainly a chorus of “I Ran” playing as a replacement for the audio tone that accompanies the walk signal would be fun! I’d have to invest in Rogaine and AquaNet to really pull it off though.
How is Quebec when it comes to bike lanes and where bikes can ride? DC doesn’t have many dedicated bike lanes and bicyclists have to ride in the street.
Also one of the other big reasons DC is doing this is because there has been a major rise in cars smacking into bicyclists while turning right on red and it’s often been fatal. At the same time I’m not surprised they’re pushing this way. They got really big on putting speed and red light cameras everywhere a few years back and some of those council members from that time are still there.
I have a titanium plate on my collarbone from someone not paying attention while turning right on red. I was on a motorcycle turning left on a green arrow but the setup of the accident would have been identical if I was on my bicycle. It’s a good thing I was unable to ride my bicycle that day otherwise I would have been hurt worse.
Montreal actually has pretty good bike lanes, but they are of varying generations so not all operate the same way. Add to that winter road clearing issues and that the city is on a mountain, so it’s a workout to bike there. The biggest issue I have experienced there is that many roads are one way, but the bike lanes on them can be two way. There seems to be more incidents of pedestrians stepping out in front of bikes because they don’t expect one coming from the opposite direction of traffic. I have nearly done this myself.
As for no right on red, Montreal is a very pedestrian dense city. It makes a lot of sense to ban right on red. Pedestrians are also chronically ignore signals to the point where during busy times crossing guards are deployed to make walkers obey the lights, not drivers. I love that city…
I was just in DC as a tourist two weekends ago. I felt (I spent all my time in the area contained by the the Navy Yards up to Woodley Park, with most of it near Downtown/Dupont Circle/National Mall) there were tons of bike lanes. At least it felt like there were tons (we used them on scooters) compared to my much smaller Upstate New York city. And that center bike lane down Pennsylvania Ave was fantastic!
I also loved the public transit.
As a resident of DC I feel compelled to comment. First, it is true that pedestrians are in great peril when crossing intersections. Second, there are so many intersections with other limitations on turning right that this would have limited impact. And third, it is exceedingly rare for any vehicular violation to be enforced that this won’t make a goddam bit of difference. Hell, they don’t enforce cars blatantly driving through stop signs or red lights. Reminds me of the worst of Detroit in the 80s and 90s.
Was just going to say, if DC is anything like Seattle, there are no cops to be found anywhere, especially those with the sole purpose of looking for traffic violations.
Your 3rd point is the biggest one… DC does NOTHING regarding traffic enforcement outside of speed cameras set up for 11+ mph over enforcement ($100) and I think a few red light cameras. And even those don’t matter much except to punish our own residents disproportionately compared to VA or MD residents who’s states don’t (and won’t) allow reciprocity for these infractions. We have to get real on enforcement but instead the wishful thinking of Bowser and Co. will continue to take approaches that will net zero change from the shockingly large amount of dangerous drivers on DC roads. I have to cross So. Dakota (4 lane, undivided, 25mph, but realistically 40mph) at a non-signal crosswalk to and from my bus stop (E2) and it’s pretty dicey at times. I actually was crossing last week (after no cars coming one direction and cars ~2 blocks away the other) which they did stop… only for one car to yell at me that “You should’ve waited to cross” O_o.
As a driver I DON’T WANT a city :
-with 20mph limits (can’t shift out of 2nd)
-that have a speed hump every 100ft that really means you have to drive 10mph (cusp of stalling in 2nd)
-that doesn’t allow right turns on red at the majority of intersections.
If I was going to reply to my own comment it would have been this. Ditto on everything but total props on South Dakota Ave. almost makes me want to stop going to Costco 😉
“I think a few red light cameras”
That’s funny. I just got a $150 red light ticket from DC, apparently my techs know how to find them. We’re based in Md but do tons of work in DC so the fine gets paid.
I guess someone from outside the district could chose not to pay the fines as long as they don’t plan on ever going back. The next parking ticket or any ticket in DC would mean your car is impounded. DC loves to impound vehicles.
Looks like more red light cameras than I thought existed (not many on the routes I take around town which explains my lack of experience with these – I also don’t run reds lol). Looks like 37 vs 92 speed cameras according to DC.
https://ddot.dc.gov/publication/automated-traffic-enforcement-camera-locations
To my point about reciprocate fines:
DC government reported an estimated $220 MILLION in unpaid tickets from MD/VA registered vehicles from 1/2020 thru 5/2021. I’ve seen a nice uptick in booted cars (4 on my 1.5 mile commute this week) so looks like some enforcement is occurring (finally). I appreciate your business paying the fines, but I don’t feel commercial vehicles are the main culprits to these fines given companies don’t typically want the liability that comes from drivers who are habitual offenders.
“Flick on your right indicator,”
So BMWs have never been able to turn right on red?
Here in NYC at least, right on green only means that all the cars that are turning have to go at the exact same time that people try to cross the street the cars are turning into. Whether I am walking or driving, I usually feel that it would be safer if people could go right on red.
Or just get some damned roundabouts already.
I live nearby, but rarely drive into DC. It’s already bad driving through DC, especially anywhere near the main tourist destinations, like the National Mall. Often, you can’t even turn right on GREEN because of pedestrians or traffic. This would probably make me even less likely to drive there. If that’s what they’re going for, power to them.
Some might say a city with that many pedestrians is thriving. So many more people can cross the street on foot to then work, shop, etc in the space your one car takes to fit through crosswalk, not to mention parking. The key issue with cars in cities is purely geometric…they take up too much room to move around and store.
No right on red is one of easiest pedestrian safety policies we can make. Pedestrian impact numbers are growing every year and this is the least we can do.
If you want to save fuel, don’t disable the stop-start feature on your brand new vehicle.
Don’t let the Wrangler forum owners hear you say that, they seem to think that Stop/Start is single-handedly ruining every JL out there.
Thats only because Chrysler did a shitty job programming it.
Stellantis did not produce an awesome seamless transition on restart which is where the anger comes from. But I have driven cars with much worse systems, and paired with the manual trans it is not a problem at all. Push the clutch in to shift and the Jeep is ready to go before you can release the clutch pedal
Asking because I figure people here will be more reasonable with answering…but are those truly helpful?
I drive a Prius, but I don’t worry about the engine turning on and off because I know damn well it’s designed to do it so many thousands on thousands of times, even while moving.
But I’ve heard that on typical ICE vehicles that these are sluggish to turn back on (let alone get a throttle response), and wear the engine out faster since these aren’t made for quite the same sheer scale of on/off as a Prius or similar?
And, finally–how do those handle inching forward? Tying into this article, say there’s some long light. One person makes a right on red, the person behind them comes forward and makes their (legally required) stop before also turning themselves, and so on. Or, just the case of traffic slowing to an absolute crawl on the highway. Will the engine turn on and off dozens of times for every release of the brake? Does it keep track of 12v battery voltage so it doesn’t kill itself?
Not that the goal is ignoble, mind you. But when I was still commuting to work I’d sometimes here the “prp-prp-prp-prrrhhh” of engines turning on beside me at stoplights from those systems and just think “that’s an ICE vehicle, not a Prius, it’s not optimized to do that so quickly, and that sucks!”
ICE vehicles with stop/start have specifically designed starting systems to handle the extra cycles and start quicker, so it’s different to shutting down and starting up a regular car using the key. The ECU will also deactivate the system based on certain parameters – things like if the engine is too cold, the battery voltage is low, or the car is on too steep an incline.
As for inching forward, this depends on the vehicle but with my Skoda only stops the engine if the brake pedal is pushed in all the way, and with light brake pressure in heavy traffic I can just keep the engine running (or just push a switch to turn stop/start off). Similarly, for starting up at lights I’d lightly take my foot off the brake when the brake lamps of the car in front go out, and by the time it’s clear to move the engine is on as usual.
Thanks, that makes sense. Maybe some of the earliest implementations of auto start/stop were more problematic? Which I suppose is inherent to most technologies.
“If you want to save fuel, don’t disable the stop-start feature on your brand new vehicle.”
I have yet to see this feature in a rental. Ever.
It’s not universal.
Here in Plano Texas we often are permitted to make LEFT turns on Red (when clear), where authorized by a flashing Yellow Left Turn arrow.
https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/ccf7552e-c4f2-492d-963b-470c42f0e83f
But if you’re turning left on a flashing yellow, (we can do it here in Oregon too) are you really turning left on a red? Semantics I know but…
In Oregon you can turn left on red as well…and not just from a one-way to a one-way. You can turn left from a two-way to a one-way on red.
Traffic engineer here…flashing yellow arrow is a permitted left turn (like turning left on a green ball indication).
Some places you can turn left on red, but only onto a one-way street (even from a two-way street)
I think I remember from my leaner manual that (here in PA) you can only make a left on red from a one-way, onto another one-way. Pretty small use case, but hey, at least they acknowledge it can happen.
There was a famous from-a-one-way-to-a-one-way intersection near my office where I would frequently argue with my colleagues about the legality of the left turn on red. One day when I was driving to lunch, I was stopped at that light with some coworkers in the car with me. My assessment of the legality of the maneuver was proven correct when the police cruiser behind me stayed dark and silent as I executed the turn. That pretty much ended the office debate on the subject.
I have to drive in D.C. a couple times a year and I absolutely LOATHE it. It’s all the congestion and claustrophobia of someplace like NYC with none of the NYC pedestrian survival instinct. People just do whatever in D.C. and then shoot you a look for daring to drive a car in a road.