Live data from Hacker News

Making an intersection unsafe for pedestrians to save seconds for drivers

collegetowns.substack.com

371–380 of 464 posts

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

#371
As a frequent pedestrian, the question of traffic light vs four-way stop sign depends on the details. Here are some factors:

- In NYC, for example, right turn on red is illegal within the five boroughs (you can always spot NJ drivers you don't know this or don't care). Right turning on red is incredibly dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, way more than traffic lights vs four-way stop signs;

- How often the light changes is a HUGE factor. I've read that there are some pedestrian crossings in LA at lights that take up to 10 minutes to change. Ridiculous. But in NYC, or at least Manhattan, light changes are quick. I suspect it's designed so a pedestrian never has to wait more than ~45 seconds;

- One way streets are better than two-way streets. There are less variables to be concerned with. Drivers may not like one-way streets. They're demonstrably better for traffic flow, pedestrians and cyclists however;

- Having an island in the middle of a two-way road is HUGELY helpful to both cyclists and pedestrians. The ability to cross halfway in relative safety makes an incredible difference;

- Having separate walk lights for each direction when there is an island is the absolute worst. This typically hugely increases the time to cross as they aren't coordinated;

- The speed limit matters. If the speed limit is under 25, cars rarely go too fast to be a problem. I've had Google Maps street directions that were basically "just make a run for it" across a highway with a speed limit of 45. There are places that say a road has a cycle path that is basically the hard shoulder on an interstate. Drivers will weave through those at 70+ to overtake 1 car. People have died that way;

- Traffic lights can decrease safety because drivers will speed up to make a yellow light. Usually I don't even have to look at a traffic light to tell when it turns yellow. I'll hear the engines revving up. I've nearly been killed this way when a driver accelerated to make what was a red light and they sped through a pedestrian crossing that had signalled pedestrians had right of way. This doesn't tend to happen at four-way stops.

- As a cyclist, I tend to find drivers give you deference at four-way stops but this may depend on the area and if it has a lot of cyclists and pedestrians. I actually prefer to give drivers the right-of-way when they have it. For example, a driver may stop at a four-way stop seeing me coming when they got there first and should just go. And I know I wasn't going fast enough to interfere with them anyway. This forces me to ride in front of them when they have right of way. I never like doing that.

So it's hard for me to judge this particular intersection without knowing the full context.

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

#372

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…

A 4-way stop is the best intersection for pedestrians in terms of speed. Just keep walking and don't yield your right of way. You may need to put up a hand to make yourself seen by the occasional distracted motorist. But because all vehicles need to stop, the average speed you are dealing with is 0-5mph, so the risk is low and everyone has time to react. Compare that with any lighted intersection where some cars are going full speed, making it a far more dangerous scenario.

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

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the article doesn’t claim what the drivers are doing is illegal. The article says that the street design causes drivers to speed up and makes the intersections unsafe. Instead of drivers always stopping, or at the very least slowing down, when approaching the intersection, the new street design leads to drivers speeding up when approaching the intersection. This is bad design for pedestrians irrespective of wh…

> Except the article doesn’t claim what the drivers are doing is illegal. The article states “… and I captured two drivers ripping through red lights in that short span.” I suppose “ripping through” can be left up to interpretation. However, in the video the author says “that person just ran a stop… a red light right in the middle of me filming.” Then the other he says: “I bet this guy runs the light. Yup, see, this…

> The article states “… and I captured two drivers ripping through red lights in that short span.” I suppose “ripping through” can be left up to interpretation.

There really isn't enough information given to make a determination.

It looks like two of the vehicles traveling on Lemon "jump" due to a ridge in the middle of the intersection but that itself isn't an indication of speeding.

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

#375

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.

It is completely rediculous and I take every opportunity to ham it the eff up when I use them. They're in in several of the nicer places on the east side of seattle but are being replaced by aggressive pedestrian flashers. I'm 6'2 but I take the opportunity to re-enact my favorite olympics floor ribbion routine.

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

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might fly in temperate parts of California, but it sure doesn't work in places with less pedestrian-friendly weather.

There are plenty of examples of walkable neighbourhoods in places with cold and/or wet weather.

Yes, there are some places that people can walk, nearly everywhere. But GP suggested "getting them out of their cars entirely". That is not a nuanced proposal that acknowledges tradeoffs and seeks to find a balanced approach. It's saying that people should not be in cars. Tell that to a parent with 4 bags of groceries and 3 kids and see what the reaction is.

If we want better cities and towns, zealotry won't get us very far. It will get us laughed at. And I say this as someone who walks all the time and is about to do so right now.

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

#377
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is pissed off about the design of the intersection. If you have to litigate bullshit like this, surely you see, well, the intersection is poorly designed. You are also litigating whether or not it's legal. A lot of traditions of California driving are legal and really dangerous. My dude, CVC doesn't even apply in a private parking lot for example, so you can accidentally kill somebody in one and legally fa…

My problem is that author doesn't seem to understand the traffic laws and wrongly says cars ran a red light. I'm not interested in his opinion after that. If you are going to put something on the internet about bad design you should make sure you understand it first.

[deleted]

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

#378
post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why it's often safer to "jaywalk". If you're in the middle of a block, you only have to look two ways. Even if you screw up, a driver going at a reasonable speed is more likely to see you anyway because you're directly in front of them. I'm not exactly advocating for crossing in the middle of a street in North America since it's depends a lot on the situation, but there's a reason why people sometimes just do…

California just made jaywalking legal in 2023 too.

NYC legalized jaywalking in 2024, and the change will take effect next month, Feb 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/jaywalking-legalized-in...

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

#379
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, aren't these standards mostly relevant where heavy bicycle traffic exists? Do they still apply in areas with little to no bicycle traffic? I'm assuming you're mostly referring to this famous manual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROW_Design_Manual_for_Bicycle...

There is no bicycle traffic because there are no bicycle roads. It's incorrect to claim that we shouldn't build bicycle roads because there's no bicycle traffic :)

A similar concept would be to only build airports where there's lots of planes landing.

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

#380

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.

What you are describing has a major sampling bias: most pedestrian fatalities will be at large intersections with many lanes crossing each other. Those intersections are on busy streets where drivers are going fast and where there are an insane number of conflict points. Yes, they're invariably controlled by a signal, but that's because a four-way stop is totally out of the question. The signal didn't cause the fatal…

> What you are describing has a major sampling bias: most pedestrian fatalities will be at large intersections with many lanes crossing each other. Those intersections are on busy streets where drivers are going fast and where there are an insane number of conflict points.

That's not what the point plot of the Toronto data shows. Many of our fatalities are on city streets with 40 or 50 km/h speed limits.

Anyway, I was responding to the OP who was claiming that they would rather deal with stop lights than 4 way stops. There is nothing that shows that 4 way stops are dangerous at all, let alone more dangerous than light controlled stops in similar situations.

Post reply on HN