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

431–440 of 464 posts

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

#431

Post by mtalantikite »

cloverich wrote: post #312
mtalantikite wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not allowed here in NYC. I've nearly gotten mowed down by people from the suburbs driving into the city not knowing it's illegal here on a few occasions. They also seem to get pissed and honk at me , as if walking around NYC isn't the default mode of transportation.

To be fair I've seen NYC _pedestrians_ yell at other pedestrians for walking wrong, NYC isn't exactly an outwardly friendly place in that respect.

Haha that’s fair. There are unwritten sidewalk walking rules that tourists and new transplants don’t always know. Once you start thinking of the sidewalk as a place that commuting takes place it makes a little more sense — people are late for work and that tourist walking while looking up or another with their face stuck in their phone is like a car driving 30 in the leftmost lane.

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

#432

Post by ars »

pta2002 wrote: post #430
ars wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I stop past the while line, it's almost always because I thought the way was clear, but then something happened, and I had to stop, and then the light changed, and I was stuck past the white line. If you implement your plan I would never even see the light become red!

And that's fine, because you've _already crossed the line_ and therefore you can (and should) go through. You're no longer running a red light at this point, since it's behind you, you're just crossing the intersection like normal.

Do you drive much in cities? I'll lay out something that happens all the time:

I cross the line slowly, and some pedestrian darts out, so I stop, by the time they cross, the opposing traffic has a green, I however (in your scenario) do not know this because I can't see that the light is red for me.

So now I'm driving forward, thinking I'm good and some car comes flying through because it's green for them, and they can't see me because of the layout of the block.

I need to see and know that the light is red and just stop and wait there.

Similar things happen when the car in front of me wants to turn left, but didn't bother with a blinker - I'm in the intersection, past the line, and suddenly I need to stop because he's turning. He turned, but now it's red for me and I better wait right there, and not go forward, because other cars are about to drive.

You also aren't taking into account the varying heights of cars. If I'm in car behind a van, I won't be able to see the light because it's directly above the van so I can't see it.

Also:

Your goal is to keep cars from going too far into the intersection after a red, right?

The problem is you are assuming this happens due to incompetence, but it actually happens because of driving conditions like I mentioned.

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

#433

Post by ars »

rafram wrote: post #411
ars wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously that would be better. If no one applied for the job you raise rates until someone does. You don't artificially start unnecessarily high. If you do you are basically stealing from taxpayers to give gifts to unions.

Fortunately for the workers, paying below minimum wage is illegal. (And for what it’s worth, it’s really hard to hire even at minimum wage these days. McDonald’s pays well above $15 in most metro areas - including in states which use the federal minimum.)

The actual scenario at hand is paying 3x wages "just because".

You said 1/3 minimum wage as a strawman. Not to mention minimum wages aren't necessary anyway - like you said "it’s really hard to hire even at minimum wage these days".

Pay market wages, without external forces driving wages higher. Because, higher wages means higher costs, and if you are government that's essentially theft from your taxpayers.

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

#434

Post by CuriousCosmic »

rcpt wrote: post #384
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Hence the appeal of turning the intersection into a roundabout and pulling the stoplights 3-5 cars from the roundabout and only stopping traffic when pedestrians are present (i.e. puffin and pelican crossing style). It gives cars enough time to turn and then halt with a bright red stop light to catch their attention.

Roundabout + pedestrian stoplight is probably fine. I don't think I've ever seen one and I live not too far from where the article is written. Seems like it's still worse for pedestrians as they have to wait for the beg button.

Here's a link to the Massachusetts Dept of Transportation's guide on designing/building roundabouts:

https://www.mass.gov/doc/massdot-guidelines-for-the-planning...

It provides solid guidance on how roundabouts should approach crossings to minimize risk of accidents or collisions without impeding traffic.

Probably the best graphic is on page 45, figure 5-13

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

#436

Post by rcpt »

Tade0 wrote: post #195
rcpt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about roundabouts? Those are a nightmare for pedestrians

How so? Both as a pedestrian and driver I prefer roundabouts as they force drivers to slow down to non-lethal speeds and there's typically a one car length of road between the turn and pedestrian crossing, so the cars are already going straight when they cross it. The only road users who don't mix well with roundabouts are cyclists on cycling lanes, as they get in and out of view too fast.

Drivers also slow down at stop signs.

The issue with roundabouts is that drivers never look to the right while entering. We have a few around me in Long Beach and when you're on foot you may as well be invisible.

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

#437

Post by cortesoft »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #403
cortesoft wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on how far from the intersection you are. If you can’t stop before the intersection, you shouldn’t slow down because you need to get through the intersection in time. Those cars didn’t have time to stop safely. They would have had to slam on the breaks, which is very dangerous because the car behind you might not stop in time. Speeding up to get through in time is the right decision if you are very close t…

Speeding up is only the right decision because it's a poorly designed intersection.

There is no intersection design that could avoid this. Some people are going to be too close to the intersection to stop in time when they see yellow no matter what you do.

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

#438

Post by philwelch »

pta2002 wrote: post #429
philwelch wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the stoplight was suspended above the stop line it would be harder if not impossible for the driver to see it.

There's usually two - one suspended above the stop line, and one lower, on a pole on the side of the road, usually around eye level. This way both the driver in the front and drivers in the back get a clear view. This is not a hypothetical "if", pretty much every country in Europe has traffic lights set up like this. Just take a look at Lisbon or Amsterdam in street view to see what I mean.

I’ve seen this in on-ramps but surely you can understand why duplicating traffic lights isn’t an ideal solution.

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

#439

Post by philwelch »

unethical_ban wrote: post #401
philwelch wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing people into a 19th century standard of living is not good for their well being.

"Walking" is not some outdated concept. Lordy.

No but living in a world without automobiles absolutely is. I’m sick and tired of this deranged notion that it’s somehow virtuous to deliberately impoverish ourselves by giving up things like cars that, empirically, human beings from every culture rich enough to afford them prefer to use.

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

#440

Post by philwelch »

jplrssn wrote: post #296
crackercrews wrote: post #266

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.

There are also plenty of examples of countries that lack reliable running water. That doesn’t make it a preferable standard of living.
Post reply on HN