Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

collegetowns.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 464 posts

Re: Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

#171

Post by SoftTalker »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #161
throwway120385 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the walk signal there is a brief moment in time when the drivers are doing nothing but waiting for you and are all stopped so you as a pedestrian can account for them in preparation just before you get your signal and make your move. Having almost been hit a few times by drivers making a right turn on red, I can tell you the drivers never wait even if you have the right of way. You'll be lucky if they even loo…

> Having almost been hit a few times by drivers making a right turn on red, I can tell you the drivers never wait even if you have the right of way. You'll be lucky if they even look for you. Right on red should not really be allowed. It's a real hazard.

It isn't in much of Europe.

Re: Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

#173

Post by jonpurdy »

Ensorceled wrote: post #115
potato3732842 wrote: post #25

As a pedestrian I will take a busy light controlled intersection with a pedestrian scramble type walk signal over a busy 4-way stop where every single time. With the 4-way stop there is never a time in the cycle when all traffic is stopped. The drivers who are present are continuously paying attention to what other drivers are doing which robs them of situational awareness to note pedestrians. You can try and time it…

This is just not true. In Toronto for instance, the majority of pedestrian deaths are caused by impaired/distracted drivers with a significant portion of failure to yield by left turning drivers at major, light controlled intersections. There isn't even a category for "four way stop" pedestrian fatalities.

Speed is nearly everything and controlling (ie. reducing) speed should be the primary way to influence fatality rates.

Having lived in both Toronto and SF, both cities with 4-way stop and controlled lights intersections.

I'll take 4-way stop any day since speeds are lower. Much better to get hit by a car at near zero speed than a right or left turning car at higher speed. Which is probably why Toronto doesn't have a category for four way stop fatalities.

(The worst are SF's 2-way stops at intersections between equally-sized roads that show up randomly throughout Sunset. Worst of both worlds.)

Re: Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

#174

Post by [deleted] »

JB_Dev wrote: post #112
DHPersonal wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember my father telling me that was how it was supposed to be done, as the yellow light for oncoming traffic would convince them to stop and give you the time to complete the left turn. It only worked when they weren't also running the yellow light! These days I prefer waiting to turn so that I'm not stuck out in the middle of the intersection when the traffic light changes.

If you do not wait in the intersection itself then you would never get a chance to turn in many intersections. The only solution is to always wait in the intersection itself.

[deleted]

Re: Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

#175

Post by rhplus »

JB_Dev wrote: post #125
potato3732842 wrote: post #25

As a pedestrian I will take a busy light controlled intersection with a pedestrian scramble type walk signal over a busy 4-way stop where every single time. With the 4-way stop there is never a time in the cycle when all traffic is stopped. The drivers who are present are continuously paying attention to what other drivers are doing which robs them of situational awareness to note pedestrians. You can try and time it…

Make it a roundabout with protected pedestrian crossings. That forces drivers to be looking at the conflict point with pedestrians as they manoeuvre the roundabout.

This. Roundabouts with medians. The answer is (almost) always roundabouts.

Re: Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

#176

Post by whimsicalism »

ed312 wrote: post #153
hombre_fatal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Texas government decided that red light cameras can't enforce the law. That's how car-brained we are. Muh privacy or something.

The core issue is those red light cameras create a persistent database of who is where, which is then sold at a marginal cost to whoever wants it to advertise to/manipulate/track a population. Adding cameras everywhere invites a dystopian nightmare vs better urban design and occasional traffic police would solve the same problem.

i grew up somewhere that had red light cameras, the idea that they are selling the data is BS justification for diminished state capacity to enforce something really important.

e: for those downvoting, please point me to a single case of a municipality selling red light violation data if this is such a real concern

Re: Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

#177

Post by gs17 »

JB_Dev wrote: post #125
potato3732842 wrote: post #25

As a pedestrian I will take a busy light controlled intersection with a pedestrian scramble type walk signal over a busy 4-way stop where every single time. With the 4-way stop there is never a time in the cycle when all traffic is stopped. The drivers who are present are continuously paying attention to what other drivers are doing which robs them of situational awareness to note pedestrians. You can try and time it…

Make it a roundabout with protected pedestrian crossings. That forces drivers to be looking at the conflict point with pedestrians as they manoeuvre the roundabout.

Those don't fix it in my experience. There's one about a quarter mile from where I'm sitting right now and I avoid it when walking because of how dangerous it is. Yes, they will see you crossing... as they almost hit you. They recently redid it to be a bit safer for driving on (before people were unclear on how many lanes it had and which lanes could turn where) but it doesn't seem to have improved the pedestrian experience much.

Re: Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

#178

Post by prmoustache »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #69
inetknght wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedestrians rightfully expect safe walking and biking infrastructure. Not everyone can drive. Most of those who can't drive also cannot afford a taxi or rideshare. Many of them also do not have friends or family who can get them where they need to go, and reliance on others is extremely demoralizing to independence. That says nothing of the carbon cost in fuel, the microparticle cost in tire and brake dust, or other…

I agree with everything you said except your first sentence. Why should people rightfully expect walking and biking infra to be paid for when it contributes so little to their economy?

For a start because building infrastructure for cyclists brings more return of investment, happiness and health than infrastructure for cars.

Re: Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

#179

Post by benjijay »

floren wrote: post #157
the_sleaze_ wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it as the "California Roll" - to slow down but continue to cruise through stop signs.

That's old fashioned, the current "California roll" is to just continue at full speed through stop signs or red lights.

I am more familiar with (and more partial to) a California Roll consisting of 'crab' sticks, avocado, and cucumber, wrapped in seaweed and then rice.

Re: Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

#180

Post by rafram »

prasadjoglekar wrote: post #136
Ithildin wrote: post #116

Aside from the debate, 600k seems insanely high for this intersection. No wonder this country's infrastructure is crumbling when it takes over half a million dollars to put in a few lights.

This sort of work usually costs 3x what is should, because the firm doing the work has to pay state minimum wage and/or hire union labor.

Would it be better if they hired non-union labor at $5/hour (1/3 the minimum wage)? Would you apply for that job?
Post reply on HN