Slashdot Mirror
Unintended Consequences For Traffic Safety Feature
An anonymous reader writes: Traffic engineers had a problem to solve: too many pedestrians were getting hit by cars while using the crosswalks at intersections because they didn't know when the 'WALK' sign would change. Their solution was simple: implement a countdown timer. Countless cities have now adopted these timers, but it turns out to have an undesired consequence: motor vehicle crashes are actually increasing at intersections where the countdown timer is used. Researchers think this is because pedestrians aren't the only ones who see the timers. Drivers see them too, and it provides them with information on when the light will change. Then they anticipate the change by either speeding up to beat a change to red light, or anticipating a green light in order to get through before the pedestrians can move into the road. The researchers suggest finding some way to hide the countdown from the drivers, perhaps through the use of an audio countdown that would be difficult to hear from inside a car.
Please don't do an audio countdown. It doesn't work for us hard of hearing people.
We would run out of deaf people SO FAST. Obviously the proper solution is to make the sidewalk vibrate.
how dare these communist scientists try to affect the killing pedestrians feature of this modern sport that driving cars in cities is.
You know, take the decision to be an asshole driver out of the hands of people.
Make angled sides on the signal to that you can only see it from like a +/- 5 degree angle, or less, and use sounds for the blind.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Since they can't hear, maybe they should use a flashing light, oh wait...
Computers will fix this kind of thing by default.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Drivers need to pay attention to the road, there is no excuse for hitting a pedestrian in a cross walk or for a car to hit car at a cross walk. Drivers need to grow up, pay attention and stop blaming everything but the lack of driving ability.
The driver should only score half points...
Worst. Signature. Ever.
Is that it seems like the timer gets down to 0, then adds 5-10 more seconds. I'm not sure why that happens, but it seems like if drivers learned that just because it is getting to 0 it might not be actually changing, they might lessen this behavior. I suspect they could also make the numbers a bit smaller, or better enclose them, so perhaps you need to be looking at them from a certain angle to see them.
The solution is to create a system that makes it profitable to generate a system with 0 deaths and the shortest travel times from random points A to B.
What the article speaks about is not the problem, it's the symptom. Just as giving the fines money to local governments shortens yellow lights, a system must be found that gives money to the best solution. Which should be easy, as we know how to identify the better solution among the existing ones.
So:
1 - Define rules of best solution.
2 - Give money in direct relation to proximity to best solution
3 - Wait.
In atlanta at least, the countdown is already accompanied by an audible chirp.
Intended for blind or otherwise disabled folks (except deaf folks, naturally), it also serves as a cue for regular folks as well to hurry up on some of hte larger/wider intersections.
Really all that should be fixed is to put a bigger gap between the countdown reaching 0 and the light actually changing. My experience with signal timing (and this is my trafic engineering schooling showing through) is roughly half-half: about half the intersections I saw with the countdown change immediately, others still have the standard 4-5 second "intersection clearance delay" between the countdown ending, and the light actually changing. The clearance delay exists for obvious reasons to put a delay between one side turning red and another green. It should simply also take the crosswalk into consideration as well as a best practice.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Put a small shield along the side of the timer so the drivers can't see the timer.
I know, I know, the solution doesn't involve some convoluted, drawn out, highly technical, over-engineered process so it will never be implemented.
Instead, we'll go out of our way to find the most convoluted, drawn out, highly technical, over-engineered, and expensive, solution and claim we're making progress.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
This article makes utterly no sense. It can't seem to decide (and I'm still not clear from reading it) on whether the countdown applies to tell the pedestrian how much longer he has to wait before he's allowed to cross; or how long he has remaining to get across safely.
"It alerts pedestrians to how much time they have to cross the road." implies they're talking about the drivers light being red, but turning green at the end of the pedestrians countdown.
"Drivers can see the timer too and as the timer starts winding down to two or three seconds the driver knows the traffic light is about to turn red and that makes some of them speed up to get through the intersection." implies they're talking about the drivers light being green, but turning red at the end of the countdown.
Little help, anyone?
Sacha Kapoor and Arvind Magesan, the authors of the paper, are economists. Slashdot: How Often Do Economists Commit Misconduct?
In Ca, it's a ticket if a car enters a crosswalk while a pedestrian is using it, no matter if they're on the other side of the intersection or not. And the new walk signals have a visor around them so unless you're almost directly in front of it, you can't read it. They also started using audio signals, which beep and talk, for the blind.
Build a skyway.
...is they try to fix human behavior via engineering, but people can't really be engineered.
For example, in my home town we had a roundabout from hell. Five highways came into a loop via offramps. Literally once a week there would be an accident and once a month it was a fatal one.
So some brilliant traffic engineers tried to solve the problem by creating off ramps for each other highway. At highway A you could choose to offramp to highway B, C, or D. But the "offramps" used the roundabout, which now had concrete dividers about curb height. The mayor, the local press, and local government kept trumpeting how many lives this would save.
Well, turns out the only thing more dangerous then five highways going into a giant roundabout is five highways going into a roundabout with concrete dividers to slalom around. Accidents became a daily occurrence and fatalities went up.
As it turns out, people are stupid. Sure, if you are new to town and take the time to slow down to read the sign, and drive carefully, you can figure out where you're going. But people zip in at highway speeds, apply the brakes quickly, and try to swerve over.
The problem is not one of engineering, but one of behavior. Modifying the behavior (via police enforcement) would be more effective then a fancy solution.
Before seatbelts people drove much more cautiously because they didn't want to be impaled by their steering column in a crash or tossed through their windshield to become stuck in a tree. Thus we introduce seatbelts and eventually legally require them for safety -- but what happened is car crashes skyrocketed because drivers felt safer while strapped in so everyone started driving more irresponsibly.
Approaching the intersection: OBEY YOUR SIGNAL.
NO LOOKING AT PEDESTRIAN SIGNS.
Setup eye-tracking cameras on the pedestrian signs pointed at the street. Link to red-light camera.
Ticket in the mail for any driver caught staring towards the pedestrian sign.
Interestingly, there are no such issues in Europe. Probably it is better to learn about proper timing and blinking green light used in some countries.
Rather than accept that the latest fad has not helped and has other negative consequences, just like educatoin the powers that be instead wish to modify "tweak" "enahnce" the existing failure instead of reverting back to the original state and starting over.
Go back to the original walk/do not walk and add "run". No timers so nobody knows quite how long it lasts. ...
Drivers see them too, and it provides them with information on when the light will change. Then they anticipate the change by either speeding up to beat a change to red light, or anticipating a green light in order to get through before the pedestrians can move into the road.
Say I'm a driver, approaching an intersection, the countdown says I have 3 seconds so I speed up to make through the green. Where's the increased risk to a pedestrian, who, if they are going perpendicular to me, have a red light? Are they saying drivers are mis-judging it, and speeding up only to hit red? at which case, the pedestrian still LOOKS before crossing, no? I fail to see how it causes increased accidents or risks versus cars not being able to see it.The theory doesn't hold any water at all.
When it is time to cross the crosswalk the underpants gnomes jump out and steal your underwear, they then run to the other side of the road and furiously wave them at you yelling "Come and get them you scaredy chicken!" Then they put the underpants on their head like a roosters comb and tuck their fists into their armpits to mimic a chicken walk. So you run across the road to beat the living daylights out of the gnome and the gnomes immediately toss your underpants into the air and they make a run to the next available crosswalk, leaving you to scramble to pick up you underwear. After a short breather you realise you have successfully crossed the street.
Sorry for the troll but I am having a bad day and have to keep myself in check I post here.
I knew the underpants gnomes were useful for something.
Could be some sort of risk compensation too. I believe the automobile safety industry is the only one that still refuses to acknowledge risk compensation. There's clear evidence things like seat belts just make people drive faster or more dangerously. They may make the occupants safer sometimes but just transfer the risk on to people with less protection like pedestrians and cyclists. See lots of great posts here http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/06/11/pater-knows-best/
Countdown timers are very useful for cyclists. It takes longer to pedal through an intersection than to drive through. if there's only a second or two before the light turns yellow, I usually slow down and stop instead of racing the yellow.
Devise a solution that informs very slow pedestrians and somewhat slow cyclists, but doesn't inform fast motorists.
Couldn't it also be the camera and senor light that usually accompany these? It my area they have put these everywhere and I would have to say they are a utter failure. For one they have increased traffic, making "catching the light" next to impossible on most roads. Second, they changed the cycle of the lights to where one direction has a green and the opposite will have a red with no indication to the motorist on the red light side, especially the ones pulling out of corner gas stations and stores, that on coming traffic has a green light. I see at least 3 near hits a week at one on my drive in to work each morning and considering how close it's to the intersection, I would say it would be considered a intersection incident. Third, timing these lights is next to impossible. One close to my house when they first put it in would stay red for the more busy street for over 3 minutes (Once timed it at 4 minutes and 10 seconds early in the morning). When it was messed up I would see 5 to 6 people a week get tired of waiting and blow the red. Heck I did it more then once. So coming to one of these light, you never know when it's going to change. When there was no sensor or cameras, then timing the lights that were on a set timer was a lot easier. Now? Next to impossible.
One thing to note (and this is evil), often the red-light camera (RLC) intersections DON'T have the countdown timers.*** In Chicago, the RLC capital of the USA--with over 200 RLC intersections in the city alone, the vast majority don't have pedestrian countdown timers. In this city, revenue generation trumps pedestrian safety...
***As a driver, in my estimation, less than 10% of Chicago's RLC intersections have pedestrian countdown timers. To add, even in non-RLC intersections, the blinking "DON'T WALK" is shorter in the city than in the suburbs (old people won't make it across if they start to cross right before blinking DON'T WALK), except if the intersection has state-owned property abutting the intersection (e.g. a state university like UIC).
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Simple: install hydraulic bollards in the road timed to match the auto signals. Bollards at the crossing start/stop can be closely spaced or electrified to keep back pedestrians. Bollards at the stop line should be capable of stopping a 3T vehicle at 60MPH without damage, though a set of raised tire-spikes might be sufficient deterrent.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Many European countries have timers on all traffic lights INTENDED for drivers to see. Doesn't seem to be a problem there.
They make driving safer, for me at least, since it gives an indication of whether I should maintain speed and continue through the intersection, or if I should start braking if the light is going to change imminently.
In my city, there is a ~3 second difference between end of walk countdown and light going red, and light going green.
Put another way, there is a time period for every light change where _all_ the lights at the crossing are red.
Result: the yahoos trying to beat the red light are usually cleared through before a green light lets anyone else in to the intersection. (People run reds, but nobody appears to 'jump' green lights.)
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
A better solution might be to remove the signals altogether. Several European towns have tried shared-space experiments where there are no signals or markings and the pedestrians and vehicle drivers have to actually watch out for each other. In all such experiments so far, traffic fatalities have dropped significantly.
Instead of a BIG sign across the street, make it a small sign on the corner you are on.
Blame the stupid drivers, you can't fix stupid.
Are a terrible idea. My daily commute involves intersections with these timers that are right next to people's houses. Cities are loud enough without Nazi computers adding to the noise pollution.
I dont know how much of an increase due to seat belts and other safety features was.... but fairs, carnivals, and amusement parks turned safe to collide vehicles into entertainment that involves people paying for the opportunity to colliding on purpose.
"His name was James Damore."
but for the opposite. I slow down when I see I can't make the light because I drive an old car with less than prefect brakes. But then I'm lucky enough to have a job where if I"m 5 minutes late twice a year I don't get fired...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Removing The Traffic Lights
There was one of these at an intersection I drove through daily. The thing I always thought to be peculiar, was that the light would turn red while the countdown still had 2 seconds left. I noticed because I definitely ran a red light, thinking I had plenty of time to make it.
If the timers are set up like that one, then of course there are going to be many more accidents.
The most dangerous place to cross a street is at an intersection. Pedestrians have to look in 4 different directions to be sure no cars are going to hit them. Drivers have to consider the same 4 directions. But if you walk across the street half way between intersections, then you only have to consider cars coming from TWO directions. I did the math, and that's half as many ways you have to look.
As a pedestrian who nearly got hit recently (while crossing at an intersection, WITH a walk signal--and yes, I took the initiative and moved out of her way before she hit me), this has seemed obvious for quite a while now. I will admit that if we made this official, it would cause more work for drivers, as they would have to be on the lookout in twice as many places. But it beats getting hit.
Think of it this way: It's not jaywalking, it's civil disobedience! There, much more amenable to slashdotters! 8-)
Here in Bulgaria we have many (in fact, most) traffic lights with countdown timers for cars. Most don't even have timers for pedestrians. And these timers started to appear about ten years ago.
I haven't heard of increased car crashes at intersections. My own observations also don't point in this direction. People are (or at least I am) using these timers as a more precise yellow light. And drivers in Bulgaria don't have to twist their necks in order to see them. Maybe this is the problem?
Disclaimer: Bulgaria has a very high fatality rate on intercity roads. These are not related to traffic lights, though.
My town has been adding these countdown timers to most stop lights. They are fantastic for drivers. You can tell if you need to speed up or go ahead and break for the impending red light. I no longer have to slam my breaks for surprise yellow or red lights. I suspect once people learn to time their stops based on the clock, quick stop accidents and red light run accidents (much more serious) will actually decrease.
In some areas of Portugal we have exactly the opposite - timers applied to traffic lights instead of crosswalks. In some places we also have crosswalk timers together with traffic light timers.
Why is this a solution? Because drivers will stop paying attention to crosswalk timers and use their own traffic light timers instead, which have a security offset of 1-3 seconds. This not only makes standing at a traffic light much more dynamic and time-efficient (drivers will know how long they have to do imprudent things like fixing a rear glass, looking at the mirror, texting or picking something out of a glove box, with a high degree of safety), but it also prevents them from prematurely hitting the gas, as most drivers feel it is unsafe to go before the timer hits 0.
Also, the timer works in both waiting for a green and waiting for a red. Yellow lights could be fully substituted by a red and green light only with a timer which would turn yellow on the last 1-3 seconds before a red. It would also prevent a lot of ambiguity in yellow light ticketing which is very common in urban areas and is reason for dispute between veteran drivers and over zealous traffic authorities.
In the uk, the pedestrian light starts to flash for the last 5 seconds or so indicating that it is no longer safe to start crossing (unless you maybe run) but anyone on the crossing has time to get across. Simiarly at the same time the drivers light flashes amber before going to green to indicate you may go provided the crossing is clear. Seems simpler and better than timers with beeps and all the other extras that could be concieved.
When I was getting prepared for the drivers test I was told that paying attention to the crosswalk signs was a necessary step. I wa told that unless you did that you might be caught unaware of a light change and fail your test.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
My thought: implement a full three to five second delay between when the pedestrian light turns red and add a "Yellow" -- ready signal during the transition between red to green lights. That should add extra-time and delay traffic between the events of pedestrian stopping and traffic moving. (I seriously hate it when I see someone crossing an intersection in a car within a microsecond of his light turning green.)
Adding the timers doesn't help anything because pedestrians ignore the timer anyway and will just walk out even if the light is about to change.
So, all you've done is give more information to the people who you didn't intend to give it to.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Which is why you also put in a speed camera on such lights as well as a red light camera with a big sign saying "Red Light - Speed Camera". All new red light cameras are both speed and red light camera here with the old red light cameras being retrofitted with speed timing loops.
If you speed up to make the light you get a speeding fine. Traffic actually obeys the speed limits as there are enough of these to make it a pain to speed up and then slow down for the intersections.
In some cities, the combination of red-light cameras and shorter yellow lights encourage looking at the timers. I know I'm extremely guilty of this, but feel like I wouldn't have enough time to stop if I didn't. Many drivers are more concerned with getting tickets than driving safely - not a good incentive if you ask me.
The problem is not about the driver, but about the passengers, who are the first casualties.
The steering wheel is designed so that your head won't smash against the windshield, while the passengers are left unprotected.
The car makers also improved the sensation of security in the car.
A lot of years ago, when you were driving, you had the feeling that your life was in danger.
Now, you don't even realize that, thus dangerous behaviors appear.
Simply put: add extra *all red* states, of 2 ~ 5 seconds, and fine the ass out of anyone crossing it. This is called a guard time, and it does help.
It will NOT fix the issue, but it might reduce it back to what it once was.
Easy fix for this. Just make sure that as soon as the light turns red, big steel spikes come up from under the road to stop or pierce any car that might try to outwit the system. Oh, and on both sides of the street to ensure that real high-speed idiots will be caught on the other end.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I often rely on pedestrian timers to let me know whether I will have time to make it through the intersection before the light turns red, since the yellow light is often shorter than it would take me to ride through a major intersection or come to a stop before I reach it.
"Traffic engineers had a problem to solve: too many pedestrians were getting hit by cars while using the crosswalks at intersections because they didn't know when the 'WALK' sign would change."
Sounds more like a 'stupid' problem than a technical one.
The sign changes when the sign changes - if you can't figure that out - stay off the streets.
In Germany the traffic lights don't go from red straight to green. They have Red+Yellow as an intermediate. So it's the following flow.
C = car traffic light
P = xing pedestrian traffic light
1. long - C = Green, P = Red
2. short - C = Yellow, P = Red
3. short - C = Red, P = Red
4. long - C = Red, P = Green
5. short - C = Red, P = Red
5. short - C = Red + Yellow, P = Red
GOTO 1
long and short are only relative terms. Usually the exact times depend on traffic observations and consequent optimizations.
The problem is already solved. There are screens that can be placed over LED traffic signals to make them invisible when viewed off-axis.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Thus we introduce seatbelts and eventually legally require them for safety -- but what happened is car crashes skyrocketed because drivers felt safer while strapped in so everyone started driving more irresponsibly.
Do you have any data to support this assertion? The data we do have clearly shows that highway fatalities have dropped DRAMATICALLY since seatbelt installation, and later use, became mandatory. In 1967 (the last year before all new cars were required to have seatbelts, the US had 5.26 traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled. Fifteen years later (by which time virtually all cars on the road had seatbelts, given the lifespan of a car), that rate was 2.58, or down more than 50%. Even if there was some level of increased reckless driving (which, again, you've provided no evidence for), the NET impact was dramatically positive.
I love these crosswalk countdown timers at intersections. Perfect for letting you know if you can make the light or need to forget it and brake. I'm not sure how the timers are increasing pedestrian fatalities, since the only people crossing should be with the flow of traffic, not across it.
Not all crashes are created equal. Simply stating "Crashes increased" means nothing. Scratched paint? Were they fatal? The perfect example are roundabouts. When they were introduced in the US years ago, the number of accidents in those intersections actually increased rather dramatically. People were up in arms, but then the statistitions came out and explained that while the number of accidents increased, they were on average far more minor incidents. Mostly side swipes and such. It was damned near impossible to get into a fatal car crash in a roundabout. Compare that with our old red light system where accidents are very often bad enough to total both cars and are frequenty fatal and suddenly that increase in total accidents doesn't seem so bad.
Instead of failed attempts at hand-holding, place the blame correctly, and confiscate the cars and/or shoes of these morons who are hitting and getting hit.
More accidents? Those timers aid safety as far as I am concerned. Some intersections have the yellow light time clamped down so far that you have to slam on the brakes to stop in time. I usually try to glance at them to give me a clue if the light is about to change or not to give me some lead time to begin braking.
Ah, I love that saying............ "If you try to idiot proof something you often only succeed in creating a better idiot", there are also a few variations.
"a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
"If you make something idiot proof, someone will just make a better idiot."
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool"
Where I live, red lights average about 6 to 8 minutes and the cross street's green is typically so short the first car in line can't get across w/o it turning yellow. Stop doing that. Stop making people have to adjust their entire day because the lights are so screwed up. And even UPS has software which adjusts truck routes based on left turn lights so as to avoid them. That means that left turns are a disaster.
Yellow light before green?
In Germany and other countries it works just fine, and I can't understand why it's not used everywhere...
Try living where I do. People ignore lights and crosswalks and stroll right into traffic. I saw one unlucky girl not paying attention with the wheel of a van resting on her ankle. The driver didn't even notice until people started banging on his window.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Ever hear of air bags?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
They already have this audible countdown in downtown Rochester, MI, where I live. It gets annoying after a while to keep hearing it talk.
Does this mean all those countries that giver a driver warning before the light turns green (generally by red and yellow lights being on simultaneously) are doing it wrong?
No, that's not the reason. Pedestrians have the right of way when they are in crosswalks, so cross traffic must stop even if it has the green. Putting in a countdown timer to tell pedestrians to hurry up only serves to reinforce the false idea that pedestrians are inferior to motorists. So the countdown timer was for the benefit of motorists, not pedestrians.
No, pedestrians were getting hit because the motorists simply didn't obey the law. This is why some cities conduct "crosswalk stings" where a plainclothes police officer crosses a street to see if any motorists violate his/her right of way, and points those motorists out to a waiting motorcycle officer. They catch a surprising number of scofflaws this way, especially at unmarked crosswalks.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I thought crosswalks, for DRIVERS, were like a real life version of frogger.
Another related issue is they've switched to fast light changes. This lets just a few cars through at a time. That is in turn causing more accidents and wasting more fuel with more stops and starts.
The countdown merely has to end before the light changes, not as the light changes.
In the area I am in, the countdowns all end early. So motorists can't time a green light change using the countdown. They still can race the countdown, knowing (or even just suspecting) that if they beat the countdown they will get through the intersection and not knowing that if they don't beat it they'll still make it through. But that's not as big a problem anyway because the people who see the number and try to beat the light going red are traveling parallel to the pedestrians anyway, not through the active crosswalks.
If it goes from a countdown to a blinking hand doesnt this give you the same amount of information as before before a light change?
It's easy. Put a second countdown on the red light for the cars.
Play Command HQ online
ring a bell?
Idiot drivers rushing traffic obstacles have been a problem ever since the automobile was invented. During the first fifty years of automobile ownership they were especially problematic with collisions with trains because those idiots tried to beat the train to the grade crossing and they lost. A 200 ton locomotive against a 1/2 ton automobile is no contest. A 1000 pound automobile against a human being at a fraction of the speed and mass is no contest. People are too quick to blame the machines and should starting blaming the idiots behind the wheel.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
I'm clearly in the wrong line of work. Let me outline this for you:
1) Make sure light (red, green, yellow) durations are appropriate for the intersections
2) Put timers on ALL lights (countdown to green, countdown to yellow, countdown to red)
3) Clearly mark the stop lines for cars
4) Redlight cameras with significantly steep tickets
If that doesn't help, add speeding cameras for the zone . . . word will get around.
Works in certain municipalities in China where everyone feels the need to break the rules.
Thus we introduce seatbelts and eventually legally require them for safety -- but what happened is car crashes skyrocketed because drivers felt safer while strapped in so everyone started driving more irresponsibly.
Do you have any data to support this assertion? The data we do have clearly shows that highway fatalities have dropped DRAMATICALLY since seatbelt installation, and later use, became mandatory.
Not the original AC, but I'm sure he would argue that fatalities have decreased because seat belts do legitimately save lives, but that there are more accidents because no one worries that a low-speed impact will kill them. I'm almost positive that the absolute number of accidents has, in fact, risen since 1968. Of course, the number of vehicle-miles has about tripled in that time, so one might expect an increase in the absolute number of accidents. Similar logic is used by drunk people claiming they are safer drivers because they use attention to compensate for their impediment. It's patently false, but often used as an excuse for not doing the right/safe thing.
There is no air bag in the back seats.
I remember that the passengers on the back seats were a possible cause of death for the driver.
Even before the installation of countdown timers here, I've always considered the walk/don't walk lights as an indication of what the traffic lights are going to do. If you travel past the same intersections regularly you learn how long the don't walk light lasts before the traffic signal turns yellow, and you learn the sequencing of things like turn lights as well. This has always seemed to me to be common sense, though a lot of drivers are clearly oblivious to it.
If that useful extra information causes you to get in accidents, however, then you are not using it correctly.
The problem is that yellow lights are too damn short. If there's a countdown to the red light, then there should be plenty of time while the light system is telling everyone to stop. Right? Since drivers can't trust the who knows duration of a yellow light, they end up trusting the countdown timers instead.
If federal interstates are a good idea, then federal minimums on yellow lights are a good idea. Specifically, the minimum yellow light time should be a function of:
* Speed limit
* Incline of road
* Average human reaction time
* Any frequent road conditions which reduce friction
Right now it is a function of:
* Number of idle police officers
* Traffic fine
I'm sure this'll work just fine for the deaf people
yup, somehow
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
This reminds me of a requirement we had on a hardware project once. There was a status indicator LED on the device. The requirements were that the the LED needed to be visible to an operator within 3 meters, but must not be visible at any distance further than 3m.
"A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
Just use those old style LCD displays that can't be seen from extreme angles.
One thing cyclists learn quickly when crossing big intersections from narrow side streets is to look out for signal anticipators. Often the cross-street light is green for too short of time for a cyclist to make it across when starting from a full stop (especially with groceries on the rack). Meanwhile, the main-street drivers are used to a short cross-street light and so start to drift forward before their green; or, worse, drivers approaching the intersection on the main street think they won't have to come to a full stop at all. At twilight, flashing bicycle lights are least effective, so this situation is most dangerous then.
Bottom line: Never anticipate a signal. Always be aware of the actual traffic environment. As a cyclist, assume people will anticipate a light, and know the safe bail options (like stopping at the mid-street island).
The problem is not that drivers can see the signs it is that they are hard to see form a distance (i.e.: the previous traffic light.) What if the traffic lights communicated to your vehicle when they are going to change and your vehicle calculates how fast to go? Instead of driving 40mph and gunning it at the last moment you could drive 42mph from the previous traffic light and get through the green light comfortably and safely. Audi actually tested something like this a few years back.
Why not just put a shroud around the countdown clock that's sufficiently large and long to prevent a ca driver from seeing the countdown? Since the pedestrian is on the other side of the road, usually at about 90 degrees, he can see the timer perfectly fine? It's something that's done fairly frequently here in the UK when there are intersections with numerous traffic lights affecting different lanes. If you're in that lane, you can see the light, if you're not in that lane you would have to be a long way out of it to confuse which light you should be looking at.
Adapting this to pedestrian crossings, a tube of sufficient length over the countdown clock would prevent a driver seeing the countdown in most circumstances. In those edge cases that it's not, like a 4 way crossroad, project the countdown in to a sub-ground level location at the crossing topped with a glass brick. Save cost with option 1, use option 2 when option 1 isn't working. Simples.
Pedestrians are getting killed far more often at crossings at much higher rate than anytime in the past 60 or so years. The numbers they are seeing may not be related to what they think are seeing.
Apply anti-glare polarization to car windshields (blocks horizontally polarized light) and then use horizontal polarization on the pedestrian crosswalk timers.
step two: require habitual jaywalkers to wear clothing that reflects only horizontally polarized light.
Easy fix for this. Just make sure that as soon as the light turns red, big steel spikes come up from under the road to stop or pierce any car that might try to outwit the system. Oh, and on both sides of the street to ensure that real high-speed idiots will be caught on the other end.
There was a big increase in physical barrier installations around govt. buildings after 9/11, so the technology has had a lot of time to mature.
It's probably not a bad idea for problematic intersections, although you'd also have to have tow trucks on standby to clear the daily wreckage, and pedestrians would still get hit with flying parts or when cars jump the sidewalk to avoid impact with the barrier, or dash through the emergency vehicle gap that would need to be included.
Would be a LOT of fun to watch, until someone's kid died as collateral damage.
Taiwan has had these for years. Not only do the pedestrian walk signals have timers, so do both the green and red lights. They'd have to adjust for density though.... if you think driving in the states is hard, try driving in Taipei where every lane has scooters on both sides of you.
Personally, I like and use the pedestrian counters as part of my driving. As part of my judgment i check those if available, whether to push through the light or not.
Get off the damn phone, both drivers and pedestrians.
Cars can come at you from multiple angles. When you're walking the car has a green light to turn into the cross walk. Cross in the middle of the road where cars can only come from 2 directions and any turning cars are at their maximum distance from you.
Obvious tautology is obvious. When a deer runs in front of you or your car starts to slide on ice, tunnel vision takes over. That means the only thing in your mind is the deer on the road, not if your seat belt is buckled.
In this case, where motorists are looking to pedestrian signals to decide whether or not they can increase speed to beat a light, and rear-ending another in the process, the liability is obviously with the motorist. Pedestrian signals are in place exclusively for the management of sidewalk-to-sidewalk traffic. At no place in law, MUTCD, or HDM does it suggest otherwise. Thus, the motorist is at fault if s/he uses a pedestrian signal to measure how to drive an automobile on the road and, in doing so, causes harm to person or property.
Moreover, California Vehicle Code 21703 explicitly states: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway." That's the citation to resolve the rear-ending issue. Increase the fine, advertise it well, and watch these kinds of collisions go down.
But that's not even the underlying problem. The underlying problem is that there is an over-inflated value of life and convenience placed on the motor vehicle and driver in comparison to all others using the public right of way. This is why the pedestrian signal is being blamed for the issue, not the motorists themselves.
Drivers of motor vehicles notoriously go un-cited for killing bicyclists and pedestrians in the course of violating traffic law and, recently, some people are picking up on the pattern.
http://www.vice.com/read/you-c...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11...
http://www.bicyclepaper.com/ar...
http://cironline.org/reports/b...
Moreover, the last 4 decades of city design have seen the expectation of free right turns and super-wide right turns-- both of which make traveling by automobile faster and more convenient, but also increase the amount of time it takes for a pedestrian to cross a road. With the increased crossing time requirements, it becomes more and more necessary to have countdown timers on pedestrian signals.
If you want an engineering solution to this problem, implement the 3 engineering change below:
(1) Tighten up corners to at intersections. This reduces the distance corner-to-corner, reduces the time needed to cross the street, and slows down automobiles so that they actually see the pedestrians crossing the street (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signalized/13027/images/e91.png).
(2) Add pedestrian bulb-outs wherever there is street parking to further reduce the time needed to cross the road. (http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/images/pages/N2674/Bulb%20Outs.jpg)
(3) Then, and only then, remove the count-down timer for pedestrian signals at that intersection.
Effects:
(1) The right-turning automobile is slowed, but red signal durations become shorter because it takes less time for pedestrians to cross the street.
(2) Pedestrians cross the street quicker.
(3) Pedestrians count-downs are removed due to lack of need thus removing the temptation from motorists to use them inappropriately.
When I first saw them appearing, the "unintended consequence" of drivers using them was immediately obvious and appreciated ;-) Such use is no excuse for an accident though - only an idiot doesn't make sure some other idiot isn't on a collision course before going into an intersection. It's as bad as the people suing the state of Oregon because an expansion joint on a curved overpass in the Portland area is a little uneven - cars hop a little going over it, but if you're not going way over the speed limit, it's not a problem and thousands of cars handle it every day. But a few idiots couldn't and now that it's made the news, here they come out of the woodwork.
The problem with this is it kind of assumes maliciousness on the part of the drivers. That they must be kept in the dark in order to make the correct decision. If the problem is that they are using walk countdown timers to incorrectly determine when the light will change. Maybe adding a countdown timer to the traffic light would give them more accurate information. If they are being distracted by trying to gather information from a pedestrian light maybe putting the information directly in front of them would help them keep focus. If they are just trying to beat the light, they are foolishly looking for an accident.
It's a well-intentioned law, but completely idiotic in practice. I was recently in LA and Long Beach, where some intersections feature streets with 6-7 lanes, making them nearly comparable to a third or more of a city block. A slow-moving pedestrian (most are) may take more than 20 seconds to cross that distance, essentially limiting right turns at the light to one or two cars. And this causes a pile up in that turn lane under any moderate to heavy traffic. Now drivers are waiting through multiple signal changes to simply make a right turn, which makes them impatient, which makes them drive faster and more erratically to make up lost time on the remainder of their trip.
If a pedestrian has vacated all the lanes the traffic intends to enter and is "safe" on the other half of the intersection (the vehicles lanes facing the intersection), then a turn should be permitted. Otherwise you're solving one problem and creating new multiple new problems elsewhere.
The only thing I can say is correlation is not causation. Or I could just say your logic is completely idiotic and flawed, on easily a dozen levels.
About 10 or so years ago there was a show by that title, I think on the Discovery Channel. It was kinda a bloopers show. It used UK video footage with an announcer, and may have been a UK show.
In one section, they showed cars spinning out on a curved entrance to an expressway. Cars spun out at the rate of 3-4 a month. The engineers came in with the solution. They banked the curved entrance. After that, cars spun out at the rate of 3-4 a month. A traffic safety engineer then appeared and explained that people make a judgement a risk assessment for the road condition and the speed they think is safe. By banking the road, you only motivated people to change their risk assessment and, if so motivated, drive faster. The percent who pressed the envelope of speed and miscalculated enough to spin out stayed the same. The safety expert pointed out that after decades of making safer roads and safe cars* almost no dent (pun intended, Arthur) in the rate of accidents and deaths and injuries. Being a Brit, the safety expert said the solution lied in increasing the apparent risk. This could be done easily, and would probably greatly reduce all traffic accidents: put a 4" spike in the middle of the steering wheel pointed at the drivers heart! (Maybe 6" lower would have an even greater effect.
*This show I guesstimate used footage from the UK from early 2000's and probably a lot from the 1990's. In the USA the total number of deaths from vehicle accidents is now around 30,000 per year, roughly. Around 1970 it was 55,000 a year, and we have a lot more people driving a lot farther distances. Increased seat belt useage and airbags are major factors in the decrease. Other factors, anti-drunk driving efforts, limitations on teenage license use, other safety features in cars, and many other all add up.
Smartphones probably ahve a bigger impact than anything else. I have seen people step out into the streeet without looking up from their phones so many time sove rhte last couple years... I almost hit a guy jay wlaking, while looking at his iphone, just a few days ago. Theya re an outside variable that probably ahd a much larger impact on intersection accidents than any crosswalk strategy.
I've noticed in the last 20 years or so an increase in this: a driver comes to a stop sign or cross walk, and instead of stopping at "the line" they stop but protrude several feet into the cross walk. I've had to dodge a few cars for this.
See Ray Bradbury's The Pedestrian and Fahrenheit 451
We've had pedestrian lights with green/red lights plus 3 different sound warnings before green/during/before red for quite a few years in Belgian cities. They seem to have appeared to help people with with visual difficulties. I am surprised US researchers have not found about this.... I have, however, no idea about any effectiveness statistics...
Due to the layout of my city and neighborhood I am regularly a motorist and pedestrian. Is a pedestrian I find the countdown timers to be exceptionally helpful in deciding to cross or not.
As a motorist I find them even more helpful as in my city we are subjected to random length yellow lights. It is never my intention to run a yellow light however in some intersections if you stop for a yellow light you may find yourself sitting at the yellow for up to 15 seconds. When the random length yellows were initially silently implemented there were a rash of rear-end collisions for vehicles stopping at intersections.
I would propose that drivers are entitled to more information rather than less. Drivers should see a countdown for the length of yellow lights as well as Green and Red lights.
This would allow motorists to make educated decisions. Currently drivers compelling their vehicles in a given direction hoping that the deities responsible for fate happen to be in their favor.
The additional information should come at the cost of zero tolerance. Currently we refer to collisions as accidents inferring that fault may not lay with the motorist.
Giving drivers more information should make them fully responsible. Run a red light = lose your license. Run a red and hit someone = go to jail.
Most people I've ridden with who seem compelled to run red lights seem to do so in an effort avoid intersections that dont perform the function of directing traffic but rather provide the function of blocking traffic:. IE light signals that sit red or turn RED with no opposing traffic or pedestrians. Get rid of broken intersections that punish people for obeying traffic signals and new drivers wont learn bad habits/existing drivers wont have bad habits reinforced.
cars don't slow down at a yellow light. i think my bus ran through a red light once. Ugg.
We have a huge increase in driving with smart phones while these cross walks in some areas have been around a really long time. Have they compensated these numbers with smart phone usage? I've been using those counters forever but I do not stop watching the road while reading them (perhaps if I had no sense of time I'd have to stare at them constantly? but I'd still see well enough around me.)
What they should do is get rid of yellow lights! Go to 2-3 color LEDs so there is only 1 bulb... Then make the thing shrink the green smaller (turning off border LEDS) so the green light gets smaller instead of a yellow. Blinking is also something that could be done and I'd bet blinking gets more attention than a change in color. Maybe we should just go back to NOT telling everybody too much information? KEEP IT SIMPLE. Instead of putting up blocks so drivers can't read the timers, how about not wasting the $$ on timers in the 1st place?
Have the no-walk start blinking at the proper time and set a standard for how long -- because I've seen signs that gave no realistic amount of time to slowly walk at old person speed. No-walk should blink for the length of time to cross because somebody could then step off the curb at any point "walk" is up and not worry about it.
Roundabouts should also be used more; spending $600 per year for EACH intersection (doesn't include construction cost) is a waste of money in addition to the increased insurance rates for everybody they also create.
Wasn't there a city in Europe that did away with these traffic signs completely? People had to slow down and pay more attention without all the constant guidance.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Do you have any data to support this assertion? The data we do have clearly shows that highway fatalities have dropped DRAMATICALLY since seatbelt installation, and later use, became mandatory.
This is a rather complicated issue. After I got into an extended discussion a few years ago with a friend who was convinced that seatbelts weren't useful, I really dug into the stats. Here's what I came up with:
(1) GP is correct that there are a few studies which claim to show that people drive faster (and perhaps more recklessly) when they are asked to wear seatbelts after not wearing them. To my knowledge, these studies haven't taken into account long-term usage, only the way people drove differently immediately after being told they have to wear seat belts.
(2) There also are a few studies which corroborate point (1) above by showing that pedestrian and cyclist fatalities MAY have increased slightly upon the introduction of mandatory seat-belt laws. This may suggest that while motorists were protected by belts, they also drove in a way that endangered more people. Overall, traffic fatalities still decreased (so GP is incorrect), and some other studies have disputed the claims about increased pedestrian fatalities. Nevertheless, some people have made this claim.
(3) Vehicle safety in general has improved significantly since the 1960s, as has increased penalties and enforcement for drunk driving, etc. Attributing all of the reduction in vehicle fatalities to seat belts is not reasonable -- however, seat belts most definitely were a very significant factor.
(4) Data clearly show that seat belts prevent fatalities for motorists. The question of seat belt LAWS is a little more confusing, and actually there's not inconsistent data to show that having stronger seat belt LAWS will actually reduce fatalities. Personally, I was rather shocked when I saw these claims, so I dumped in data from recent years on various states and tried to find correlations. It's true that states with tougher laws have higher seat belt use. And there is a small (but significant) correlation with higher seat belt use and overall fatality rates. On the other hand, there is NO significant correlation between stronger seat belt laws and decreased fatalities when you compare states. In fact, New Hampshire, which is the only state without a mandatory seat belt law for adults, is almost always in the top 5 *safest* states in terms of fatalities per miles traveled. (And yes, I tried to account for urban vs. rural and other stats too.)
This would tend to support the other points above -- what makes people safer is probably voluntarily wearing seat belts. In states where we are mandating seat belt use (i.e., states where you actually can pull people over and ticket them for not wearing a seat belt), drivers who don't think the belts are necessary may in fact drive more recklessly while wearing them and thus negate many of the gains. (At least, that would be one way to explain seeming contradictory data.)
(5) I would lastly note that most comparisons involve fatality rates. While saving lives is great, to really see the net impact of seat belts, we'd have to look at injury and accident rates, too. And the data often gets more murky and harder to analyze. Undoubtedly, seat belts do save lives, but even if they did, it doesn't mean that people don't drive more recklessly and/or get into more crashes -- since seat belts will generally prevent them from DYING unless they do something really stupid. I haven't spent as much time looking at injury and accident stats, but my sense is the impact of seat belts is a lot less clear than on fatality rates.
IN SUM: I'd say both you and GP have correct points. Seat belts overall have produced a significant net gain for highway safety, especially in terms of saving lives and preventing SERIOUS injuries. But there is also some evidence out there that seat belts can lead to more reckless driving, and particularly forcing people to wear seat belts when they don't want to seems to negate some of the safety gains in some cases.
The answer is obvious: flying sharks with lasers.
Put them around each intersection and train them to shoot down cars moving too fast towards a red light. It would also work great for pedestrians who are moving too slowly to make it across in time -- the cars have rights too, you know.
Now we'll have trouble when the tornadoes eventually hit town, but that's a different problem.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Wow, I wish I had mod points to give you.
Really. US road design is stupid and traffic lights are cretinous. Sudden changes from green to yellow force drivers to make a split-second decisions and quite often drivers simply respond by pressing the pedal to the metal. And it makes sense - you save decision time by being consistent!
About 5 years ago Belarus switched to LED traffic lights with clearly visible countdown timers for drivers. I.e. traffic light shows the number of seconds remaining for the green and red signals. Number of accidents went sharply _down_ exactly because drivers could anticipate the light switch.
"drivers who don't think the belts are necessary may in fact drive more recklessly while wearing them and thus negate many of the gains"
I don't get the logic on this one. If drivers don't believe in the efficacy of seatbelts, why would they drive more recklessly while wearing them? Maybe they're doing so as a way of sticking it to The Man, I suppose.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Now politically incorrect and unfashionable, holding people accountable for their decisions and making examples of those who chose the path of irresponsibility is ancient history. I expect that Crosswalk Countdown Incursion Syndrome to get a nod from the theraputic community and it's own pill* before Christmas.
Do not use in combination with other medications.
Do not take with alcohol, heroin, cocaine, or meth-amphetamines.
Known to cause heart failure, diabetes, ulcers and psychotic outbursts on a small percentage of the population.
Some people report small explosions in their spinal cords after taking.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Adjust the timing. Present the countdown for the Pedestrians, but time the countdown for vehicle traffic. If you plan on Peds at 3 MPH vs cars at 30-40 mph, set the timing to work for cars. I'll betcha ten dollars to a tin ear that this will fix the issue.
BAN the f%&cking cars !
Yours In Peace,
Kilgore Trout, C.T.O.
Akademgorodok, RU
they didn't want to be impaled by their steering column... car crashes skyrocketed because drivers felt safer
Good idea. If you made it the law for people to be executed when entering their vehicle, traffic fatalities would be decreased 100% overnight!
Or inductive loop of some kind? No need to bother people who don't opt in to be assisted.
I personally love using the pedestrian timers to judge my driving, and wish all lights featured green-light countdowns. People do the same thing at yellow lights, either gunning it to "make" the light or slamming on the brakes if they don't feel there's enough time. The yellow isn't enough of a warning; the countdowns make city driving actually a bit pleasant because I know I have enough time to make the light without getting a last-second yellow. I remember driving in Canada in the eighties; then (as I imagine now) a flashing green means you have a protected left turn (equal to a green arrow in the US.) The lights would always start at a flashing green, then go solid green for a period before changing to yellow. I soon learned that a solid green meant the light was "stale" and likely to change. That way the yellow wasn't such an unpleasant surprise. This is how I use the timers when they are available.
It's like anything else new: it may take some getting used to, but if countdowns were implemented on a universal basis, people would wonder how we ever got along without them.
In the Netherlands, the timers are set up to benefit pedestrians and cyclists. I.e. exactly the opposite of what is described here. Not only is this far better for people walking but it also completely solves the reported problem.
Why not send the countdown to the pedestrian's twitter feed since that is what they are really looking at when crossing the street?
Yes, how could we possibly cater for more than one disability at a time?
http://theconversation.com/sublime-design-the-pb-5-pedestrian-button-26232
speaking of hi-tech cars and safety, have you seen all the car recalls lately? and those recalls are for things that have been in cars for decades...ignition switches, etc.
now imagine how safe the world will be as we keep cramming more 'smart' technology in cars.
Humans cannot be this stupid. The current auto transportation system is the most unsustainable way to move. 90% of the weight of the car can be disposed of when you put them on rails and let a computer drive it. You then can move 20 times faster on 20x less energy with no accidents. This type of system would pay for itself in less than 1 year. The wars we fight to fuel this system is just a symptom of how unsustainable it truly is. Who in their right mind would think that people can drive at 55 mph and only have a painted line on the road to protect them. You people are fucking idiots if you think our species will survive another 40 years with the system we have now.
I don't think the problem is what they think it is. Correlation does not equal causation. They've started off well. The lights with countdowns have an increase in accidents. That leaves the following questions:
1. Is it a significant enough increase to do anything about?
2. Why do these intersections have more accidents? Is it really the counter, or were other updates made the same time the counter was added?
3. Are the counters only added to busier intersections?
4. I often slow down sooner because I see based on the counter that I can never make the green light. (Yes, I speed up too when I do see that I can make the light.)
5. Also, I've noticed that because of these counters, the first car starts going sooner on a green light. This means one or more cars get through the light than before. This means more traffic is getting through the intersection. So is it the light or the increased traffic through the light causing the increase in crashing?
Anyway, I don't think we are ready to act yet.
So what if i want to time the light.
In Cuba, drivers have thier own timer. It counts down the time until each light change - from green to amber then starts from X when the light changes to amber to show how much time is left in amber until red.
The pedestrian counter shows time til walk and then time til dont-walk.
Seems to work very well for all involved.
For cost control, the traffic counter can be just 1 digit, showing a + when more than 9 seconds remain.
Just my CUC0.02
They'll end up putting vehicles in underground roadways then the Eloi can walk the streets to the green fields beyond.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
All they are doing is speeding up on the yellow, same thing.... Need to write some tickets and that will slow them down.
Paul E. Bahre
I was about to recommend exactly this, thank you!
The solution is not to give people an excuse for thinking less, or a target to beat (it's almost like a game), the solution is to require people to think for themselves, to learn and to pay attention to the things that matter. The sign doesn't matter, the person or the car do. If a car is out of control, the sign won't say so, it will just tick away. If a kid shoots into the intersection on his bike, the light won't turn red. The driver has to watch out for it.
Exceptions happen. Automated systems are not suitable for an exception-ruled world. The best engineered solution is to remove the clash point entirely. Make a pedestrian bridge for crying out loud. But what about the cost? Compare to the cost of all those crashes, lost lives and wasted dollars on engineered solutions that didn't work or made the problem worse.
It's a lesson I learned in software development, called the "blue sky" scenario. It's easy to make something that works in theory, when the skies are blue. But will it work in reality, in stormy weather or at night? What kind of storm? How strong, from what direction? It's easy to make something that works, but very much harder to make something that will not fail. And the more complex the system, the farther apart those positions are. A society of meatbags is monumentally complex.
Make people have to think and be responsible for themselves, or give them dedicated paths. Anything else is just a social experiment with people's lives.
Although I think the self-driving car has promise, I wonder about the unintended consequences here too...
Although I can see the possibility of the unintended occurrences happening as noted in the article, it seems as if these occurrences are being exaggerated. Just speaking from my own personal driving experience, I find that the countdown timers are a very important aid to the driver. I have never been placed in a panic situation (must jam on brakes or speed through yellow) when looking at these timers. There will always be an idiot that will try to gain some kind of advantage while driving unsafely no matter what is done to provide safety on the road. These timers are an excellent indication of a pending traffic light change. I really wonder if the perceived problem with the countdown timers in actuality is the fact that they really provide such a good method for drivers to stay alert regarding traffic lights and thus are less likely to get caught by traffic cameras and in turn (the most important fact?) are less likely to incur traffic light camera fines. Now preventing this "revenue" seems to be the biggest unintended consequence.
Secondly, this information is USEFUL to drivers and should be INTENTIONALLY given to them. I personally slow down for a lot more intersections than I used to because I can see in advance that I won't be able to make it. Yes, in a minority of situations, I speed up , so that I get through the intersection rather than miss it by a second or two, but I don't do this at the expense of safety, why would I? Oh right, I forgot, many drivers do not have a clue as to how to pay attention to all aspects of their on-road environment, but we let them drive anyway because driving is important to North American society on the whole.
The solution is not to remove information from competent drivers. Remove the incompetent drivers!
P.S. It also wouldn't kill cities to have better light timing (I'm looking at you, @citywaterloo) so that drivers don't feel so frustrated at being constantly robbed of time and momentum for poor reasons, and then maybe you'd have fewer people making bad judgement calls and choosing to race a light counter when they are too far back to safely do so.
From TFA (yeah, I know it's embarrassing, but I read it):
===
The timers lowered the number of accidents involving pedestrians. In other words, when people know how much time they have to get across the intersection, it helps them get across safely or decide not to start in the first place. But the timers also increase collisions between cars.
===
Human injuries are harder to "fix" than is damage to cars. The study found the type of vehicle accident increased was the rear-end collision, one of the least likely to cause serious injury, and at a level considerably below car-vs-pedestrian.
So I think having the countdown timers is a reasonable tradeoff -- fewer major pedestrian injuries in exchange for a greater incidence of relatively minor vehicle damage and generally lesser driver/passenger injuries.
[It occurs to me to wonder if today's rear-end crashes might have gone largely unreported back in the era when they didn't routinely total the car, as they often do today.]
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Obligatory open carry should tamp down this problem. Particularly if RPGs become more readliy available
The solution to all these non-crime traffic laws (running lights, speeding, drinking, phoning, etc) is to make causing a traffic accident an actual crime itself--something like destruction of property, battery, or homicide by motor vehicle, each and every time a car crashes into anything. Have the police officer take the accused into custody on the spot. The day of imagining a car crash to be an "accident" has long passed.
Problem: People do stupid things
NOT THE SOLUTION
There ought to be a law.
The Government needs to DO something
Technology needs to save us
Let's dream up a Fix for the last stupid solution using the same people that thought up the fix
THE SOLUTION Some idiot jumps the light and gets run over. Other people see this and go, wow maybe I should pay attention. It's on the news and people think Hey that could be me.
But Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo we demand some idiot in the government solve all our problems. YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID WITH LEGISLATION!!!
Murphy was an optimist
In places like Indonesia (and other SEA countries) they have a counter on top of the normal traffic lights so that the drivers/scooter riders etc can see it. I thought it was pretty useful, as it allowed people to slow down if they see the lights are going to change red. Maybe what needs to change is the attitude of the drivers. The counter seems to work well in Indonesia. Maybe make a law that it is compulsory to slow down if they see the counter is going to change. The other thing, is I think there is about a second or so lapse between when the light turns red and the next light turns green. That might also help.
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
The people who design intersections and the equipment used at them can't control that. They are mere mortals, not Professor X.
They can, however, make decisions that improve or worsen some aspects of traffic flow.
Or more likely, improve and worsen some aspects of traffic flow, since it's hard to make a change that affects only one thing, or only improves or leaves along everything it changes, and worsens nothing. It's hard to improve some thing or things without worsening at least one other thing.
Sometimes the results are counter-intuitive.
In one European city, they improved safety in an intersection by removing all traffic control features and devices. Signs. Traffic signals. Stripes. Even the boundary between sidewalk and street, if memory serves.
Instead of trusting traffic signals and the like, drivers paid attention.
And if memory still serves, traffic throughput also improved.
http://www.howwedrive.com/
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
The tale is that there are more car crashes with less damage to the humans, which is consistent with both your data and the original assertion. (But I'm too lazy to look it up just now.)
You see the same behavior when a stop sign is replaced by a traffic light. Folks will stop for a stop sign. They will (most) always try to "beat" the light because they have no idea how long they will have to wait for the next light change.