391–400 of 464 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where I'm from it's exactly the opposite - straight road means you can't trust drivers to slow down, but any obstacle like a big mound with a road in a circle around it makes them pay attention
They look at the mound, not the people trying to cross.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it dangerous? (Unless they're breaking the speed limit to make the light, obviously.) Just the risk that they might misjudge the timing and enter the intersection after the light turns red? But lights have a built in delay before turning green to account for that.
Because vehicles are often already traveling at or above the speed limit. Just as the yellow light is intended as a "start slowing down" but is interpreted as "speed up to beat the light", the speed limit sign is intended as a "do not exceed this speed" but is interpreted as "you must be traveling this speed". If we assumed that most vehicles are traveling the speed limit or faster, which is the case in my experience…
Given that, even if someone entered the intersection on yellow, they would be out of the intersection before perpendicular cars/bicycles/pedestrian signals turn green, how is it dangerous?
It seems the risk of collision is 0 as long as neither the driver nor the perpendicular cars/bicycles/pedestrians are illegally running red signals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of us has misunderstood the other. Maybe I’m misreading you. Let me clarify my position. If you’ve entered the intersection on green or orange, and must await oncoming traffic before you can safely turn left, then the light turns red before oncoming traffic clears, once that traffic has indeed stopped for the red, you need to complete your left turn to clear the intersection, even on red. This situation is clearl…
For the last sentence, do you mean continue on straight if the desired left turn is not available?
Other traffic (who are now, or have been) waiting at a red light should be able to tell you’re in the way and wait for you to move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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).
> the cyclists will still ride on sidewalk instead of the bike lane A lot of cyclists feel safer on the sidewalk because cars do not respect cyclists. It unfortunately does make it more dangerous for pedestrians. > Cyclists and pedestrians should be considered two separate groups. Yes, and they both rightfully expect safe infrastructure even if it is separate.
It's like the food chain, except cyclists don't seem to respect either pedestrians or motorists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why I always find it weird that in the US (and a lot of other countries) the stoplights are on the end of the intersection, instead of at the entrance. If they're at the entrance, there's no dillema - you can't cross the light if it's red. If it's yellow, you brake if you have time, but if not, it's fine to keep going - the opposing light is going to wait a few seconds before turning green specifically to avo…
The location of the traffic light has no legal meaning, there's a white painted line on the ground, which is the stop line.
We do this kind of thing in many other places in life. Imagine if we didn’t use barriers anywhere and only used painted lines to tell people where to be - don’t walk to this side of the line, that’s where the valuables are “stored” (no walls, just markings.)
We use ‘guardrails’ all over the place. Sometimes to nudge people (one can jump a literal guardrail), sometimes to prevent injury (you simply cannot physically access the active industrial robot without intentional effort), and all kinds of inconvenience in between to suggest where to be.
Place the lights so that they’re only visible further back, and people will stop further back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if California has a different law, but at least in my state it is very much illegal to accelerate into a yellow light. Enforcement is basically non-existent, but it's absolutely "running the light" and "breaking the law" to accelerate into yellow lights.
California law does not address accelerating on a yellow. The driver's handbook (which is not the law) says > A yellow traffic signal light means CAUTION. The light is about to turn red. When you see a yellow traffic signal light, stop, if you can do so safely. If you cannot stop safely, cautiously cross the intersection. The bright line rule is not to enter the intersection on a red light, defined as crossing the st…
> With the change, the light always sits green for drivers on Palm, so cars are now always flying through that street when they previously had to stop at a stop sign. Why don’t lights ever sit idle with the pedestrian crossing on and the cars must wait? Where I live, this doesn't happen because there's not enough pedestrians to justify it. When I drive in Seattle, the lights never idle, but pedestrian cycles are alwa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm literally just trying to stop drivers from killing my kids when they bike to school. Some "lifestyle".
The way you make your kids safe bikers: 1. NEVER RIDE ON THE SIDEWALK. Cars on the street cannot see you due to other parked cars and WILL make right or left turn on you. Additionaly, cars coming out of parking lots won't see you on the sidewalk. 2. NEVER RIDE ON OPPOSITE SIDE. Ride on the same direction as cars, make yourself visible. 3. INDICATE ALL TURNS WITH HAND SIGNALS. Be predictable. Don't just turn or otherw…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Everythi…
I think what you're sensing was terseness of response because I was writing on a phone.
> 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.
They are usually called "continuous sidewalks", but the terminology is locale dependent (not every place calls them sidewalks).
> 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?
Anything that is perceived as a source of frustration will cause backlash. That's not a reason not to do things that have been proven to work better. Dedicated bus lanes and congestion charges always get backlash, for example, but after implemented traffic always ends up flowing more smoothly, which does make driving less stressful. "No turn on red" is the default in most of the planet. Forbidding it in cities (particularly downtown and during the day) shouldn't be a problem.
> it just removes the benefit. It would still take a generation or two to change learned behavior.
I think that people adapt much faster than generationally. And it is important to change incentives. Incentives affect us way more than we realize. Something as trivial as changing the coloring or texture of the intersections causes us to change our behavior in ways we wouldn't necessarily notice unless we paid a lot of attention.