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

251–260 of 464 posts

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

#251

Post by Ensorceled »

jonpurdy wrote: post #173
Ensorceled wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'll take 4-way stop any day since speeds are lower.

Exactly. People are, at worst, doing a "rolling stop" so they are still only going a few kph when they "didn't see" you.

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

#252

Post by simiones »

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.

Minimum wage in California seems to be $16 an hour. I doubt this intersection took 37 500 man-hours to finish, so I don't think the cost is explained by wages. Also, $200K would still seem like a gigantic amount of money for adding stop lights to a single intersection.

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

#253

Post by parshimers »

It's too bad they didn't put a roundabout here, there's one in the middle of old town Orange and it works pretty well. Terrible waste of money to make the intersection worse like they did.

It also says something that the behavior of the cars here isn't even illegal in California. Entering an intersection on yellow and exiting on red is fine. Right turn on red is also allowed, and many people combine that with a California stop (though that last part isn't legal). All of the above are extremely hazardous for pedestrians and encourage speeding.

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

#254

Post by dylan604 »

afhsrtjwrtj wrote: post #139
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…

Why is right-on-red always cited as the biggest problem with turns? My anecdotal experience is that drivers turning on green are way more likely to hit me when I have a walk signal on the cross-street than drivers who turn right on red.

The number of people that make right-on-reds that not once during the approach or during the turn look to their right is what makes it a problem. I have often been tempted to do one of those YT videos of people spending their day videoing people at intersections to show how prevalent bad behavior really is. I just have no presence there for it to make it worth my time. I know how bad it is, and adjust my personal behavior accordingly

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

#255

Post by _DeadFred_ »

mindslight wrote: post #187
throwawayffffas wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

IMO the problem isn't right on red itself, but rather that vehicles have to be in (and often completely over) the pedestrian crossing area to see oncoming vehicle traffic they have to yield to (at the distance required due to higher oncoming vehicle speeds). This encourages the behavior where drivers plan to have a single stop in that area, where they wait for an opening in vehicles to go - completely failing to take…

Not stopping before the pedestrian area is an instant ticket in my small town. They really promote walkability here. All of the issue listed seem to stem from lack of law enforcement. Our town also has bins at intersections with bright orange flags to increase your visibility as well as flashing 'pedestrian crossing' strobes initiated by button at problem location.

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

#256

Post by toast0 »

tanewishly wrote: post #215
afhsrtjwrtj wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is right-on-red always cited as the biggest problem with turns? My anecdotal experience is that drivers turning on green are way more likely to hit me when I have a walk signal on the cross-street than drivers who turn right on red.

Are you saying that a right-turn can be green simultaneous with the pedestrian's crossing light being green? Because where I'm from, traffic lights are not allowed to be set up like that. No simultaneous green for crossing traffic flows, unless otherwise indicated (eg, an extra warning light+sign under the turn's traffic light flashing when it's green and off otherwise).

Yes. This pattern is normal in the US.

While vehicles are traveling north and south, the walk sign for crossing north and south is available. But vehicles are typically allowed to turn in the same cycle, protected lefts with their own cycle are common. Some intersections have a dedicated arrow for right turns and those will signal no rights while a walk sign is on, but otherwise pedestrians and right turns conflict.

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

#257

Post by gs17 »

inetknght wrote: post #57
1970-01-01 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. They expect safe walking and biking infra to fall from the sky and complain online when it does not.

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…

> Pedestrians rightfully expect safe walking and biking infrastructure.

Cyclists and pedestrians should be considered two separate groups. Most biking infrastructure doesn't benefit me at all as a pedestrian (but it's okay, because the cyclists will still ride on sidewalk instead of the bike lane).

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

#259

Post by crackercrews »

prmoustache wrote: post #165
crackercrews wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second car definitely entered on yellow. It doesn't matter if they could have stopped. They have the right to enter on yellow. The first car passed the first line when the light was yellow, but not the second line. The area in between is the crosswalk. I can't tell if "enter the intersection" means "enter any part of the area past the line where you're supposed to stop" or "enter the part past the crosswalk, wher…

The fact people can't figure what the rules are is a problem in itself vs a stop sign where everybody knows you should stop.

I know where to stop. I stop before the crosswalk What is less clear is what the word intersection means in a technical sense.

Complicated or ambiguous rules are a part of life. If the idea is to get rid of anything that requires lots of rules, then we'd all still be on foot. No cars, no horses, no bikes. Would that be a net improvement?

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

#260

Post by andrepd »

rcpt wrote: post #142
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

With roundabouts drivers only look to the left and don't come to a complete stop. If you're on foot trying to cross from the other direction good luck.

Crosswalks before the entry to the roundabout, where drivers need to stop anyway; bonus points for a gentle speed hump. Am I missing something?
Post reply on HN