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

341–350 of 464 posts

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

#341

Post by pclmulqdq »

getpost wrote: post #308
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 lik…

There is local traffic culture in a lot of places. LA residents in particular don't like stopping at stop signs. Boston drivers turn left immediately when the light turns green even if other cars going the opposite direction have right of way. Texas drivers speed like madmen on freeways. New York drivers change lanes with reckless abandon.

Law enforcement officers in all these places never pull people over for this stuff.

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

#342

Post by bloak »

np- wrote: post #160
bloak wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've sometimes wondered what the exact rule is with red lights. Presumably you're allowed to continue moving forwards if the front of your vehicle passed the stop line before the light turned red. But if you stopped with the stop line passing through your vehicle are you allowed to start moving forwards again while the light is red? (Whether that would be a sensible thing to do would depend on whether you're driving…

If your vehicle is ever fully stopped past the line, and the light is red, that would be considered a “blocking the box” traffic violation in most jurisdictions. You technically should not have entered the intersection at all without the ability to fully clear it.

In England, I thought it was only the "crossed out" intersections that you shouldn't enter unless the exit is clear. Rule 174 here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-...

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

#343

Post by mindslight »

estebank wrote: post #324
mindslight wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of looking deeper at the actual dynamics is to brainstorm ways intersections could be made safer, without overshooting and then getting a campaign to undo it all in 20 years. For example: Less visual obstructions so that oncoming traffic can be seen sooner? maybe, but probably not going to change learned behavior Advance the crosswalk even more, with two separate lights? perhaps on a per-intersection basis…

> Less visual obstructions so that oncoming traffic can be seen sooner? This is called daylighting and California passed a law for it https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/daylighting > Advance the crosswalk even more, with two separate lights? Pedestrians already have a "leading signal" in intersections with lots of people, which makes the wall signal change before the green for cars. Right on red defeats their…

I don't know why it feels like you're jumping on me here. Is it just CivE attracting people who overly focus on nouns?

What you're calling an "at grade crossing" is indeed a good one I missed. I would call them something like crosswalk on a speed bump, which might be "car centric" or whatever, but at least isn't overloading a term that generally refers to using different levels for actual traffic separation. Everything we're talking about here is actually an at grade crossing.

> I don't think there is any risk of "overshooting" in making cities nicer and safer for pedestrians and all other road users in the US. If anything it will be an uphill battle to accomplish any change.

You really don't see the possibility of backlash to "no turn on red" everywhere creating a campaign of drivers getting frustrated while waiting for timed red lights to change at completely quiet intersections?

And also FWIW, "no turn on red" doesn't actually prevent drivers from driving into the pedestrian crossing area - it just removes the benefit. It would still take a generation or two to change learned behavior.

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

#344

Post by bobthepanda »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #182
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.

It's usually because a driver turning (right) on green doesn't have to worry about merging into traffic, so they only need to focus on pedestrians. Hopefully they will. A driver turning right on red has traffic coming from their left and pedestrians walking in front, and they're usually more concerned about the cars, so they tend to look left while turning right. Ouch. It's a growing issue as well because of the grow…

Also, while technically a right on red should require one to come to a full stop, then start their turn, in practice many people are doing rights on red at rolling stops at significantly higher speeds.

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

#345

Post by enragedcacti »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #144

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.

Driver and pedestrian are not immutable characteristics. A driver you slow down in one intersection becomes a pedestrian you made more safe and saved time for in another. I agree that analyzing the tradeoffs are important but the broader picture is that in the US' dense urban environments, many of the benefits of cars are that they allow you to avoid pedestrian hostile infrastructure.

The wheel and spokes of a road network should prioritize cars and most urbanists will concede that, but hubs have a wildly different set of constraints. Picking a one-size-fits-all cost to slowing down drivers completely ignores that reality to the detriment of pedestrians and drivers.

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

#346

Post by tsimionescu »

potato3732842 wrote: post #191
RC_ITR wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a green arrow turn, drivers are looking to where they are going. Legally crossing pedestrians are in that cross walk where the driver is looking. With right on red, the driver is also looking to where they are going, but legally crossing pedestrians are not there, they are directly in front of the car. The riskiest thing for a pedestrian is approaching a right on red car from the left, because the driver is simply…

The big problem with right on red is that it perfectly synchronizes them to hit each other. Say a driver and pedestrian are at the same corner facing the same way and the pedestrian wants to cross into the area the driver wants to turn. The street is busy so the driver can't turn right on the red and the pedestrian isn't gonna just walk against the signal into the traffic. Cross traffic lets up, either because of a b…

> Say a driver and pedestrian are at the same corner facing the same way and the pedestrian wants to cross into the area the driver wants to turn.

That's not a thing that normally happens though. In a regular four-way intersection, if a driver is at a red light, the pedestrians that are allowed to cross are the ones that are crossing the street the car is on. If the car wants to turn right on red, then the pedestrians it has a risk of hitting don't care about the traffic that the car needs to wait for.

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

#347

Post by danenania »

grogenaut wrote: post #334
danenania wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a pretty large percentage of drivers don’t actually know that they’re supposed to yield to pedestrians when turning at lights. I’ve had multiple close calls where the driver looks at me angrily, I point at the white ‘walk’ symbol, and then their anger turns to confusion. They had no idea that they’re supposed to wait.

I live in seattle where people are pretty good about yielding. It's confusing as eff which lights and what times the peds are going to get a walk signal when I'm taking a right and when they're not. Some also go walk at the same time they go green for right turns. Some slightly delayed. It's hard to watch both lights as a driver and the oncomming traffic.

I agree that it's confusing, which is why I think pedestrians should be given their own exclusive time to cross the intersection, just like cars. It would be easier and safer for everyone.

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

#348

Post by kspacewalk2 »

grogenaut wrote: post #334
danenania wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a pretty large percentage of drivers don’t actually know that they’re supposed to yield to pedestrians when turning at lights. I’ve had multiple close calls where the driver looks at me angrily, I point at the white ‘walk’ symbol, and then their anger turns to confusion. They had no idea that they’re supposed to wait.

I live in seattle where people are pretty good about yielding. It's confusing as eff which lights and what times the peds are going to get a walk signal when I'm taking a right and when they're not. Some also go walk at the same time they go green for right turns. Some slightly delayed. It's hard to watch both lights as a driver and the oncomming traffic.

Rights on red are an inherently dangerous design flaw of North American traffic laws. It's not allowed in NYC and soon won't be allowed in DC and Atlanta.

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

#349

Post by manwe150 »

mindslight wrote: post #318
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you mean bins where people like, take an orange flag out, cross the street holding the flag, and then put the orange flag back in the bin on the other side? This is the first I'm ever hearing of that, and it sounds immediately ridiculous. But with further consideration I could see this being quite interesting for significantly changing the dynamic.

Yes, the flashing lights are more common in my area, but either are a nice signal that someone wants to cross (and isn't merely waiting for their uber or to get in their own car)

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

#350

Post by thedanbob »

baq wrote: post #80
thedanbob wrote: post #28

The county where I live recently (within the last couple of years) redid a two-way stop along the road I take to work. It used to be east-west that had the stop signs, but for some reason they switched them to north-south. Even more baffling, they didn't repaint the stop lines so east-west still had those and north-south didn't. It effectively turned the intersection into a four-way stop with extra confusion, frustra…

should've been a roundabout with 0 stops

I would love it if roundabouts caught on in the states, at least the single-lane ones. Multi-lane and the huge ones with traffic lights always scared me when driving in the UK.
Post reply on HN