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

201–210 of 464 posts

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

#201

Post by simiones »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #59
munchler wrote: post #11

> I captured two drivers ripping through red lights in that short span Video actually shows two cars entering the intersection on yellow lights, which is legal. The rest of the article seems similarly exaggerated. ---- Edit: For those who disagree, please be aware that the stop lines are out of frame, so both cars are already in the intersection before they're visible on the video. You can get a better picture of wha…

Both may be legal, but the first one is unclear and is definitely unsafe. Safety requirements dictate a slightly different understanding of yellow light than is commonly used by drivers. For safety, yellow must mean "begin controlled deceleration immediately". The first driver had plenty of time on yellow to not be just barely entering the intersection on red. They clearly were not decelerating and had very likely sp…

This is very much wrong.

When a driver sees a yellow light, they must make a call: do I have time to safely slow down and stop before reaching the stop location, or not? If I do, then I must start slowing down right away - that much we agree o. But if I don't, then I mustn't slow down, as that is more likely to leave me in the middle of the intersection while the lights turn green for through-traffic.

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

#202

Post by cortesoft »

chaoskanzlerin wrote: post #111
the__alchemist wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this surprises you, consider the alternative: Driving through a yellow being illegal or unexpected doesn't make sense, given the finite stopping distance of cars, and reaction time of humans. This is because the yellow light is the first explicit indicator you must stop. If this doesn't make sense still, picture this scenario: You are driving at the speed limit. You are 500ms from crossing the stop line threshold.…

Austria does that: 4 seconds of the green light flashing in order to announce the yellow light.

So a pre-yellow light? This seems like you just changed what we call a yellow light to the 4 flashing greens, and made the yellow the new red. If yellow means “don’t enter the intersection”, how is that different than a red?

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

#203

Post by throw7 »

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #36
rcpt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about roundabouts? Those are a nightmare for pedestrians

Roundabouts aren't perfect but they greatly reduce the speed of traffic at the crossing point (while increasing the overall throughput of the intersection). Without looking up statistics (and I'd love to be proven wrong here), I'd be willing to guess that roundabouts may result in some marginal increase in minor accidents but massively reduces fatalities or accidents that leave the pedestrian in the ICU. Additionally…

I'm not against circles in general, but (along with pedestrians) they aren't exactly bike friendly either.

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

#204

Post by Spivak »

the__alchemist wrote: post #93
UseofWeapons1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to look this up. In California in particular, this is true, which surprised me. Per a random law firm: California’s yellow light law permits drivers to enter an intersection during a yellow light. No violation exists unless any part of the car is over the stopping line when the light turns red. However, the law encourages drivers to slow down before reaching the intersection. Whereas in, for example, Massachuse…

If this surprises you, consider the alternative: Driving through a yellow being illegal or unexpected doesn't make sense, given the finite stopping distance of cars, and reaction time of humans. This is because the yellow light is the first explicit indicator you must stop. If this doesn't make sense still, picture this scenario: You are driving at the speed limit. You are 500ms from crossing the stop line threshold.…

Yep, something something Chesterton's fence. If you couldn't drive through a yellow then you effectively have two lights go/stop which makes drivers choose between the safe but illegal thing of running the light or the dangerous but legal thing of slamming on their brakes.

You can't have an instant switch between go/stop which yellow— effectively meaning unsafe stopping distance go, safe stopping distance stop— solves very neatly.

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

#205

Post by dleslie »

crackercrews wrote: post #145
dleslie wrote: post #13

> Why don’t lights ever sit idle with the pedestrian crossing on and the cars must wait? The author knows the answer as well as most readers do: because the intersection is being designed with cars in mind, not human beings.

> designed with cars in mind, not human beings This is a bad faith framing. The cars are driven by humans. Or in the case of autonomous driving, are driving humans around. I've come up to plenty of lights that had the pedestrian signal lit even though there were no pedestrians. This happens during the day and at night, and is frustrating. Just happened the other day when I was driving around midnight. Not a pedestria…

If the designers were truly considering the well-being of the occupants of the vehicles then they would be designing cities to minimize the time spent in vehicles; which means more than saving a few seconds at a stop light, it means getting them out of their cars entirely.

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

#206

Post by NegativeLatency »

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?

Cul-de-sac style suburbs, stroads and other related development patterns are a net drain on the local economy. It’s not a sustainable pattern long term when infrastructure needs to be replaced or upgraded.

And besides it’s really depressing to be so isolated and only get around in a little metal box.

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

#207

Post by amalcon »

CalRobert wrote: post #72
ajmurmann wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of adoption of best practices from other countries is generally baffling to me. When I first visited China grim Europe and saw traffic lights with countdowns (like in the US) I thought we did immediately adopt this in Europe. Cultural inertia and lack of looking outwards is really frustrating.

A countdown on a traffic signal seems like a fun way to encourage drag racing. Though it's nice on pedestrian signals.

The driver can usually see the countdown on the pedestrian signal anyway. It's not obvious that this would be worse.

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

#208

Post by briandear »

Cars run stop signs too. They also speed. That’s an enforcement opportunity.

Claiming this makes the intersection less safe despite the engineering studies that were conducted is a claim made without evidence. Pedestrians not having permanent right of way isn’t a safety issue, as the author admits, it’s a convenience issue.

It seems like the author is against cars in principle and uses that bias to complain about something that makes it easier for cars despite having no demonstrable impact on safety.

I live near Barcelona and in the city, stop signs are very rare. Its signals everywhere aside from little low-traffic back streets — and Barcelona is perfectly walkable. Cars are more likely to roll through a four way stop than a red traffic light — especially if they don’t see any conflicting traffic. And at night, stop signs are less safe because you might be pulling out and a pedestrian walks out in front of you — while with traffic signals, it’s clear whose turn it is. Cyclists also seem more prone to ignoring 4-way stops than traffic lights.

Here’s a study from Montreal that, among its other conclusions, showed that signals had no impact on pedestrian-vehicle interactions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...

“… the models were unable to demonstrate a significant relationship between stop signs and vehicle–pedestrian interactions. Therefore, drawing conclusions regarding pedestrian safety is difficult.”

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

#210

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN