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

451–460 of 464 posts

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

#451

Post by toss1 »

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…

Plus, the author is wrong about both drivers running the red light. YEs, they are pushing the yellow, but they are both legal insofar as the car is over the line when the light turns red.

The first "running the red light" car at 11sec has his/her bumper fully over the white line in the last yellow-light video frame and his wheel fully on the line in the first video frame when the light is red. The second "running the red light car" has the entire car more than half way across the intersection with the light still yellow.

His point still stands that people are rushing to make the light, but it does his point no good to exaggerate like that.

While the 4-way-stop was maybe better for pedestrians, as traffic increased that would degrade.

Overall, it probably would be favorable to fix it in favor of pedestrians instead of vehicles, and to that end they should be narrowing the street and adding close-in trees and obstacles to cue the drivers that it is a much slower zone.

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

#452

Post by redman25 »

crackercrews wrote: post #266
dleslie wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the designers were truly considering the well-being of the occupants of the vehicles then they would be designing cities to minimize the time spent in vehicles; which means more than saving a few seconds at a stop light, it means getting them out of their cars entirely.

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

Minneapolis, Chicago, a lot of less temperate cities have protected walking tunnels, either underground or protected by buildings.

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

#453

Post by iggldiggl »

mig39 wrote: post #263

I hate the idea of crosswalks at intersections. I know it's tradition, and why they exist. But wouldn't it make more sense to have crosswalks in between the intersections? ie: a few hundred feet away from where vehicles are intersecting with each other?

That'd only make sense if your pedestrian network is completely independent from the road network, so pedestrians only need to cross roads, but otherwise never interact with them.

However the usual case is that pedestrians have to walk along the road because there's no separate independent pedestrian network, and in that case not providing crosswalks at intersections forces detours on everybody wanting to walk straight on ahead.

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

#454

Post by iggldiggl »

scotty79 wrote: post #363

Interesting thing here is blinking red for pedestrians before it turns solid red, indicating that you should finish crossing. In Poland blinking green has the same meaning. In Berlin and Sydney green for pedestrians is very short and basically lets you enter the crossing. But red doesn't mean you shouldn't be on the crossing. You can take as much time as you need to finish crossing. It feels way better from pedestria…

> You can take as much time as you need to finish crossing.

Well, up to a certain extent at least. Behind the scenes, German traffic lights for example usually assume you continue walking at 1.2 m/s – if you start crossing at the last possible moment and are slower than that, you will still run into the case where crossing traffic will potentially get a green signal with you still on the road.

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

#455

Post by WorldMaker »

tantalor wrote: post #368
danenania wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Left turns on green (with no green arrow) are also pretty bad imo, as are right turns on green with no arrow. In both cases pedestrians are supposed to have right-of-way, but cars often don't respect it.

That's part of what pedestrian scrambles so great: you always wait for the pedestrian phase before crossing. There is no pedestrian crossing in the car phase. The other great benefit is you can cross the diagonal (kitty corner).

I think the interesting bit in this article is that "pedestrian scramble" is sort of the assumed default at a 4-way stop though the safety of that relies on drivers noticing Stop signs and also not treating them as Yield signs (and also not recognizing that Yield implies pedestrians, too). Why isn't it the default in the version of this intersection with lights instead of just stop signs? Why is it pedestrians have to "beg" for the scramble and cars just wait for a timer? Could this be red at all lanes by default and rely on something like weight sensors instead?

(I'm also amused at the idea of making a beg button for cars. Maybe make cars have to text a phone number to beg the light the change. If cars had less annoying to the neighborhood horns you could have "horn recognition" and use the horn as a universal button.)

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

#456

Post by gabeio »

horsawlarway wrote: post #264
xiphias2 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know USA, but in other parts of the world yellow and red are different colors. Just because 2 things are illegal they aren't the same, and it takes away all seriousness from the article for me.

Genuinely - why do you care? His point is absolutely correct - the cars used to stop, and now instead they're accelerating to beat a light change. I genuinely don't know if that's actually illegal in cali - but it definitely is in several states, and you'll get ticketed for failing to stop for a red light. --- > but in other parts of the world yellow and red are different colors. Yellow is the light that means "start…

> but it definitely is in several states, and you'll get ticketed for failing to stop for a red light.

My state, which is one of the ones you are talking about, only will give you a ticket for going over the speed limit through a yellow light, not for accelerating up to the speed limit. If you proceed through a yellow without going above the speed limit (even if accelerating) and do so because you were in the intersection already (at or beyond the stop line) you will not receive a ticket (assuming you can prove it).

Accelerating through a yellow over the speed limit is just asking for a speeding ticket in just about any state.

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

#457

Post by zer0x4d »

CalRobert wrote: post #398
zer0x4d wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you really think the answer is for my 5 year old to ride her pink bike with a basket and flowers in the same street as a Dodge Ram 3500 piloted by someone staring at their phone?

1. Your 5 year old kid with her pink bike should not be on the street alone. This is just a matter of judgement, independent from other motorists. You should be behind her watching for cars. 2. If you want to ignore point 1, my argument still stands. The chances of a Dodge Ram 3500 ramming into her is far higher if she is on the sidewalk as opposed to on the street. A 5 year old doesn't understand traffic rules good enough to be riding on the side walk and watching for cars. Her best chances are to make herself as visible as possible (ie. by being on the road in a bright bike and protective gear).

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

#458

Post by scotty79 »

iggldiggl wrote: post #454
scotty79 wrote: post #363

Interesting thing here is blinking red for pedestrians before it turns solid red, indicating that you should finish crossing. In Poland blinking green has the same meaning. In Berlin and Sydney green for pedestrians is very short and basically lets you enter the crossing. But red doesn't mean you shouldn't be on the crossing. You can take as much time as you need to finish crossing. It feels way better from pedestria…

> You can take as much time as you need to finish crossing. Well, up to a certain extent at least. Behind the scenes, German traffic lights for example usually assume you continue walking at 1.2 m/s – if you start crossing at the last possible moment and are slower than that, you will still run into the case where crossing traffic will potentially get a green signal with you still on the road.

Thanks for clarification.

Sure, but as a pedestrian you have no way of telling if you took too long so the burden of not hitting you is firmly placed on the drivers.

In Poland it's bit more muddy in drivers' minds. If they hit a pedestrian who was still crossing the road while the light for him was red they think it's partially pedestrian's fault because he shouldn't be there.

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

#459

Post by philwelch »

unethical_ban wrote: post #442
philwelch wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's not ignore the negative externalities of cars. Separately: In a small town, it's objectively nicer to have certain areas that are walkable without navigating traffic.

> In a small town, it's objectively nicer to have certain areas that are walkable without navigating traffic.

Sure, I don't have a problem with that.

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

#460

Post by [deleted] »

numerobis wrote: post #86
Ensorceled wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are literally referring to the "Dutch traffic engineering standards" when they say "Dutch traffic engineering standards"

What standards specifically? What is the solution to the problem that Dutch standards provide? Duh

[deleted]
Post reply on HN