221–230 of 464 posts
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.
This is a solved problem and it's astonishing the world hasn't just adopted the Dutch traffic engineering standards outright. It's FASTER for cars and safer for people.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just rewatched and agree they both entered on orange, which is legal. This clear misinterpretation makes me question the author's take as a whole. Did they consider that cars also regularly run stop signs? Is it possible that this is, in fact, safer for pedestrians, albeit more frustrating while waiting?
OT, but it fired me up a bit - people that enter the intersection on green or orange awaiting a break to turn left. And then don’t clear the intersection on red. Now they’re in everyone’s way. How do you get them to understand they’ve already “run the light” and just need to move?
The major problem is that on very congested streets, the driver won't know if the exit will be free of traffic when the light turns red. Blocking the intersection is illegal.
To a certain degree, it is a failing of Civic design and the ruleset. The solution is generally no left turns during peak hours, which is a duct tape fix
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With the 4-way stop there is never a time when all traffic is stopped and the drivers are always paying attention to what other drivers are doing. 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. That's... not true? With light t…
>That's... not true? With light traffic a 4 way stop should have no cars at all at it most of the time, leaving pedestrians with the right of way, whereas with a traffic light there will always be a road with priority until a pedestrian hits the button. Requiring cars to pay attention to the condition of the intersection is the explicit design goal. >This was laid out very clearly in the article we just read. This is…
> Sure, theoretically the rules say they shouldn't do that but that's not how reality works.
Do you have any evidence for this or are you just making this up as you type? Because it's a bit rich to be harping about "reality" otherwise.
A large body of research supports traffic calming measures for pedestrian safety and to increase driver awareness. A four-way stop intersection surrounded by intersections that also have stop signs (as indicated by the article) would fit that bill.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I do not understand why this is so misunderstood in the comments. This picture is LEGAL in most US states as long as the car entered the intersection ON A GREEN OR YELLOW light.
At least one California law firm disagrees, hence my question: https://www.wccbc.com/red-and-yellow-light-accidents/#:~:tex... . Some quick Googling shows that "it depends on where" appears to be the right answer. New Jersey appears to be a populated jurisdiction where this might not be legal.
I looked at the link and NO, they DO NOT DISAGREE. Read the language, drivers SPEEDING through a yellow light MAY be found negligent if they cause an injury to someone.
"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.
In California, the yellow light law provides that drivers are automatically “warned” by the light turning yellow that the traffic light is about to change to red. This means that a faulty driver cannot avoid responsibility for an accident simply by claiming that they didn’t see the yellow light.
It doesn’t matter if they saw it or not. Drivers speeding through a yellow light may be found negligent for not slowing down if their driving caused an accident or injured others."
Saving seconds for cars is important. It adds up across all the intersections they cross, and makes travel time shorter. These safetyism arguments are tired because they never honestly consider the tradeoffs, particularly that cars have lots of benefits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you rather they floor it and beat the straight through traffic when the light turns green? 1-2 cars entering the intersection and then getting through when traffic clears on the red is less worse than the alternative.
One of us has misunderstood the other. Maybe I’m misreading you. Let me clarify my position. If you’ve entered the intersection on green or orange, and must await oncoming traffic before you can safely turn left, then the light turns red before oncoming traffic clears, once that traffic has indeed stopped for the red, you need to complete your left turn to clear the intersection, even on red. This situation is clearl…
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…
You have never had a driver wait?
The trade off is that the pedestrian has pretty much no right of way anywhere but a crossing, and cars will drive at you (or at least not stop for you) if you try to cross somewhere that is not a crossing. Though "Jaywalking" is not a thing and you can actually cross where ever you like.
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?
Walking is not merely some sort of hobby. It is transportation, a means of getting from one place to another -- often the most convenient and pleasant means. And transportation infrastructure certainly falls under the purview of local governments.