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

281–290 of 464 posts

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

#281

Post by cogman10 »

gs17 wrote: post #274
cogman10 wrote: post #238

Could someone explain why we always put pedestrian crossings at intersections? I've always felt like that is the most unsafe place for a crossing. In my city, there are a few pedestrian crossings with lights recessed from intersections. The lights turn on only when someone bumps the crossing button (which isn't super common) and only 2 ways of traffic need to stop/watch out.

My city has those too, and drivers ignore them. Unless you mean one with a proper traffic signal that turns red, ours just turn on yellow flashing lights.

We have both. I agree the yellow flashing ones don't do shit. Even as a driver it can be hard to even see when those lights are flashing which makes them pointless.

The overhead red, though, works great.

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

#282

Post by whimsicalism »

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…

i hate pedestrian scramble systems they make it so slow to walk anywhere

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

#283

Post by GuB-42 »

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.…

In France, it is illegal to drive through a yellow light unless it would be dangerous to stop, for example if it required you to break hard. That part is up to the officer judgment.

In practice, I have never seen it applied, and it is only a small fine anyways, much less serious than running a red light. I guess it can be used as an excuse if the police really wants to pull you over.

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

#284

Post by pwg »

itishappy wrote: post #138
potato3732842 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> ... the situational awareness of every driver who's about to get their turn is mostly absorbed in monitoring who's turn it is and who's going where. Right, that's the intent. Drivers paying attention to their surroundings is the goal. > So if you're a pedestrian and you don't time it right you could find yourself starting to cross right before someone wants to drive where you're crossing. Usually this is because yo…

> You have the right of way!

Which, while true, in no way guarantees the driver sees you. If they miss seeing you for some reason, you very well may end up on the losing end of the physics of a collision between a 150lb object and a 3000lb object.

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

#285

Post by whimsicalism »

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.

in practice i find this does not work well at all… for some reason in roundabouts is when cars most feel justified in running down a pedestrian in a crosswalk. sometimes i think they’re just afraid to slow bc of the cars behind them

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

#286

Post by gowld »

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: https://ibb.co/86tqnBM

Direct link: https://i.ibb.co/Hn36L27/Green-crossing.png

solid green (right turn allowed) + pedestrian green (for crossing).

car and ped both have access to ped crossing. (Car should yield to any ped in crossing.)

Also, I drew a picture before I realized that this wasn't what you were asking about. But I like the picture.

                C
                A
                R
                2
                |
                v

    ---------         -------- 
     CAR1 ->         
    ---------|ped ->  ------- 
             |       |
             |       |
             |       |          




                C
                A
                R
                2
    ---------         -------- 
                C          
    ---------|  pAed  ------- 
             |    R   |
             |    1   |
             |        |

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

#287

Post by s1artibartfast »

gpm wrote: post #89
CalRobert wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Crazy idea that would be next to politically impossible in North America: Have every traffic light with a countdown also be a speed camera. It'd eliminate the incentive to drag race, would give drivers more information earlier allowing better driving, and would generally make speeds limits actually a limit on roads with traffic lights.

First you have to deal with the issue of cities selling camera data to third parties and using it for license plate tracking and face ID

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

#288

Post by vikingerik »

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).

A car turning on a green light can be simultaneous with the pedestrian's crossing light being green. The driver is obligated to see the pedestrian and wait.

What's not simultaneous is a green turn arrow with a green ped crossing. Intersections in the US are designed so that a green arrow will mean the driver has no conflicts and can proceed.

Not everyone (both drivers and peds) understands that distinction.

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

#289

Post by cosmotic »

CalRobert wrote: post #43
cosmotic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only legal, but safer than slamming on one's breaks.

Generally speaking if you're going the speed limit you don't need to "slam on your breaks (sic)" to stop before a light turns red unless you didn't have enough time to clear the intersection anyway.

My partner slams on his breaks even though he goes below the speed limit and has plenty of time to clear the intersection. It's not just the speed.

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

#290

Post by dvdkon »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #248
dvdkon wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If road infrastructure is designed solely to move goods quickly, it's only because people made a choice to prioritise that. Not The People, but indivial bureaucrats. At least here in the Czech Republic, moving goods isn't on anyone's radar when designing municipal infrastructure. Delivery vehicles need to physically fit, sure, but any economic benefit they bring will only be felt as a very slight n-th order effect by…

>If road infrastructure is designed solely to move goods quickly, it's only because people made a choice to prioritise that. This argument simply does not work for the majortiy of USA.

Is the USA driven by abstract economic argumenents instead of the decisions of elected representatives?

I thougt the US had a fairly standard "town council" arrangement, with the councilors having large autonomy and being beholden primarily to voters.

Post reply on HN