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

301–310 of 464 posts

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

#301

Post by dr_kretyn »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #95
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.

Usually a crossing will instantly switch when the pedestrian button is pressed, if enough time has passed since the last "walk" cycle. Having a stage where walk is enabled when there's no pedestrians around wouldn't much help pedestrians, and would introduce inefficiency in throughput. And obviously, drivers can't press a button, so it makes more sense for controls to be accessible to the pedestrians.

Instantly? You're definitely not in North America. Many intersections around me, if you missed pressing the crossing button before parallel street had a green light, you missed your opportunity to walk for the next minute.

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

#302

Post by kurthr »

lofenfew wrote: post #158
kurthr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering how you would know when the yellow light was going to come on. Do you have some sort of countdown, or innate knowledge? Because, otherwise do you just randomly stop at green lights guessing that a yellow light might come on? Or do you drive so slowly that you can stop in the width of the white line before a pedestrian crossing? Really, I'm trying to figure out how you don't ever enter just as a light tu…

> Do you have some sort of countdown, or innate knowledge? often, in the form of the pedestrian signal. > try to clear it before it turns red? This is the rule in much of the world, yes.

I assume you mean the perpendicular direction crossing lights? Most pedestrian lights have delays longer than that in California for safety so you might stop at a green light.

Also, if nobody presses a button ped-lights don't even turn on, just like left turn signals don't turn on without a vehicle triggering it.

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

#303

Post by rlue »

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.…

On the contrary, I think it could make perfect sense: What's written in the law is one thing, and how it's enforced is another; I would argue that the former should be done with consideration to the latter.

Based on my own experience, I'd estimate that well over 99% of traffic infractions go entirely ignored by the law: minor speed violations, unsignaled lane changes, rolling stops at stop signs, expired tags, cell phone usage, and yes, running red lights.

When the letter of the law is broader in scope or errs on the side of caution, that enables the police to exercise their judgment in enforcing it (with the obvious caveat that some police will abuse any power you give them). You could imagine a scenario where someone technically runs a red light but it's totally justifiable and safe (heavy load + moderate speed + short yellow + no other traffic) and another where someone technically makes it into the intersection on a yellow light but senselessly severely endangers public safety (busy intersection + rapid acceleration + traffic backed up on the other side of the light).

I would be okay with someone evading a ticket in the first case and getting one in the latter.

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

#304

Post by whimsicalism »

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.

because drivers generally actually stop at red lights? pedestrian crossings in the middle of the road are typically much less safe in my experience because a considerably proportion of drivers do not yield. i think driving norms in other countries around yielding to crosswalks also seem to be different aka non-existent

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

#305

Post by 1970-01-01 »

gs17 wrote: post #279
1970-01-01 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my take in a nutshell. Instead of trying to force pedestrians and bikers to share with cars, we could go one level better and fully remove pedestrians and bikers from these roads until a city fund for building them a proper bike-only lane has fully matured. The only reason we force them to share public roads is because it seems logical, but the physics and logistics just doesn't work well.

> and fully remove pedestrians and bikers from these roads until a city fund for building them a proper bike-only lane has fully matured. And what do the pedestrians get?

They get a concrete maturation date on funding the bike-only lane construction, and also get to die another way than being hit by a truck.

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

#306

Post by gowld »

memsom wrote: post #229
s1artibartfast wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have never had a driver wait?

In the UK, it is very rare for a pedestrian crossing that is controlled by a button press to not completely stop traffic. The first time I was in North America as an adult, I realised that when on a crosswalk drivers will come sailing at you and will cross behind you as you cross over. That is illegal here. The drivers need to wait for the pedestrians to cross, even on "Zebra" crossings (which are the ones with no bu…

> I realised that when on a crosswalk drivers will come sailing at you and will cross behind you as you cross over. That is illegal here.

It's illegal in most if not all of USA too, but no one cares in practice. Legally, even when a car driver and a pedestrian both have access to a lane separately, if both are present, then a car driver must give a full lane-width of space to a pedestrian crossing or at the corner.

Also, even when a pedestrian is committing the auto-industry-invented crime of "jaywalking", the pedestrian still has the right of way in traffic, unless it is physically impossible for the car driver to avoid the collision. Car drivers are not judge/jury/executioner.

(Nit: "Cars" don't "drive" (yet, in most places). "Car drivers" drive cars.)

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

#307

Post by gowld »

Ensorceled wrote: post #251
jonpurdy wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A municipality could (and should) add speed bumps or other traffic-calming measures even at the approach the light-controlled crossing where pedestrians are often present.

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

#308

Post by getpost »

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…

As a nearby Los Angeles resident, I can confirm that a significant percentage, say 30-40%, of drivers 1) don't stop at stop signs, and 2) routinely run red lights at intersections when few or no other vehicles are present. It's true that it's legal to enter an intersection when a light is yellow, but don't let this statement distract from the general traffic-lawlessness that prevails. Law enforcement is even less likely to follow the law (ignoring cases where lights and sirens are activated).

I think the defacto rule that many drivers follow is, 'if the intersection appears clear, I don't have to stop.' (I'm not advocating this rule, just saying what I think the rule is.) Cell phones and screens in cars have made this rule especially problematic because drivers aren't paying close enough attention to the road to ascertain whether intersections are clear.

This isn't a recent phenomenon in LA, but it seems to have increased during and since Covid. I'd love to find reliable data on traffic enforcement. The problem is cultural, but the apparent lack of enforcement seems to have expanded the population of scofflaw drivers.

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

#309

Post by enragedcacti »

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…

> The author can get lost with this sort of textbook correct but questionable in reality take

I find this perspective very weird when (1) the "textbook" take (i.e. the one traffic engineers follow) is to almost always prioritize vehicle speed and driver safety over everything else, and (2) in what world is it questionable in reality when it existed in reality for decades, seemingly without incident?

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

#310

Post by vt240 »

potato3732842 wrote: post #99
itishappy wrote: post #47

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…

I tend to agree with you. I regularly walk, sometimes up to 40 miles per month, in the suburban hellscape that is South Hill in Puyallup, WA. This is the land of major 4 lane arterials w/ turn-lanes and hundreds of unprotected two-way and four-way intersections. There’s almost no pedestrians, I’ll rarely meet other people on my way to work, and sometimes go the whole two miles without making eye contact with a single driver.

This article didn’t touch on it, but there’s another even scarier monster lurking out there. They’ve started to replace some of our larger intersections with these “Smart” traffic lights. Most drivers have a pretty well developed feel for the pattern traffic signals follow. These are pretty much random, adjusting the traffic flow based on some metrics. They use yield left turns with single direction flow and other tricks to try and control traffic. Since the light cycle doesn’t really follow any standard pattern, they’re also pretty much random when they’ll insert the protected pedestrian crossing into the cycle. It’s a death trap. There can be people waiting at a yield left turn which will be going to red, it will click on the pedestrian walk, and the opposing traffic will still be in full green, with drivers never coming to a stop. Add to that, if volume is heavy, you can stand there for 5 minutes or more waiting for a protected pedestrian crossing.

Post reply on HN