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.
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.
Then you also take away opportunities to be a gentleman. :(
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
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.
...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.
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. ...
Yes comrade. Where do I show you my papers?
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/
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.
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.
For traffic lights that are really long, and I'm familiar with, I will often turn my engine off since I know I'm going to be going nowhere for >1min. The timer on the crosswalk sign gives me plenty of warning so I can start the engine and be ready to go.
Of course, this is hardly any different from just looking at the traffic light for the opposing direction - most of the time you can see it change to yellow, then red, and you know a few beats later your way will turn green. Drive the same route for more than a few days (e.g. your typical commute) and nearly anyone will know how the lights behave throughout the day and be able to predict them.
=Smidge=
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.
How about doing what other countries do and giving drivers our own damn timers to let us know when our lights are going to change?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
It's how much longer they have to get across. If there is not enough time to get across they should not start crossing the road.
Well, you could RTFA and see that vehicle-to-vehicle collisions increased, not the vehicle/pedestrian incidents that, in fact, decreased.
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."
Actually, I've personally witnessed drivers screw up at these intersections by watching the wrong cues. A few months ago a driver rolled out into the middle of the intersection because they thought that when the cross traffic light turned red, our light would turn green (no, the left-turn only lane light goes first after cross traffic). I know that's what they did because I was watching the light too, except this is the last intersection before I get home so I know what the light pattern is. Because the light pattern changes depending on time of day and whatever bug crawled up the traffic engineer's ass that week, when you're watching the other lights, you still have to verify your light before you go.
Ideally we'd get our own countdown timer to let us know whenever the signal is going to change. Staring at a red light for 45 seconds is boring, you can go ahead and insist that we change human nature, or you can go with human nature and give us something to pay attention to.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I don't think it's increased risk to the pedestrian it's more rear end crashes "The largest increase is in rear-end accidents and we think it's because two cars approaching a light, who both see the countdown, the guy behind, he sees the two or three seconds and thinks, oh, the guy in front of me is going to floor it too, I'll floor it and we'll both get through the intersection. Whereas the guy in front thinks, OK, I only have two or three seconds left, I'm going to slowdown. And this is exactly the type of accident that would happen in that case."
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
When you are turning and hence going to drive across the pedestrian crossing that is counting down at that moment, which should be pretty obvious.
But you are completely changing the claim being made in the first place. There's no claim that there's an increase in accidents with pedestrians. The claim is simply that collisions between cars, in particular rear-end accidents, increase. They propose that this is due to drivers seeing the counters and trying to make it through before the lights change and running into the car in front of them that instead of doing the same thing just stopped at the lights as they changed.
Setup eye-tracking cameras on the pedestrian signs
Are you going to use a zoom and enhance camera for that?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
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.
That already exists and is called the "sport" (ON) or "eco mode" (OFF) controls. Now they "only" influence the shift manual indicator or automatic gear, but that would not be a big deal to wire it as to influence the behavior of the autodrive.
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.
I'm really tired of this mentality that because some people will be shitty, nobody should be allowed to have a nice thing. It's a very lazy workaround. What is the point of life if you're going to be treated as a child through the whole thing?
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.)
Then you also take away opportunities to be a gentleman. :(
Good. I've seen drivers behaving as "gentlemen" inadvertently cause a considerable number of near misses. Not as many as asshats cause, but quite a few. The thing is, drivers should be predictable. It might appear courteous to let someone out of a side road, but it's not usual. As soon as you start behaving differently from everyone else on the road, you cause a degree of confusion. And confusion among drivers is sometimes lethal.
So next time you're tempted to be unnecessarily courteous, don't. The driver you want to let out of the side road will get out just the same in a minute or so, and there will be reduced opportunity for confusion among other drivers around you. The most gentlemanly and considerate thing to do overall is to drive predictably, and hopefully self driving vehicles will improve that.
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.
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
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.
Nothing more gentlemanly then making 8 cars stop form normal flow so you can let one person get into the street.
Why do people like you chose to be so damn rude when they drive?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
well, long term that would likely solve the problem....
People in this thread are really focusing on changing the behavior and timing of the people walking, but it is the cars that are the big danger. Maybe what we need are automatic tire spikes that rise when the light turns red.. that would provide a powerful (and more direct then redlight cameras) personal incentive to respect the intersection.
It all depends on just how much impact shittyness has. In this case, jerks are resulting in the deaths of other people. So the lives of some have to be weighed against the fun of others. It is a balance that is looked at in many areas of life (since pretty much any activity has accidents), so the question of what should or should not be done when it comes to cars is far from simple.
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.
I see this constantly. People driving "courteously" by allowing cars to go when they don't have the right of way. Unfortunately it's completely discourteous to everyone behind them who will now get stopped at the light because they waited until it turned yellow to actually proceed into the intersection.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
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.
My only assumption is that they don't actually look around them while they're driving. I see this all the time - drivers letting one person out, and holding up an entire queue behind them instead. They simply must not realise there are people behind them.
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.
no, but i will raise you a real camera that can see around corners?
Surely there is no point if there are no other drivers behind you. As soon as you've gone past, the road will be clear.
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.
It's easy. Put a second countdown on the red light for the cars.
Play Command HQ online
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
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.
It's just as annoying when there's nobody behind them. The person entering the road (or pedestrian crossing) could have gone sooner if the car had just kept going and gotten out of the way, instead of needing to wait to make sure the car is going to stop for you.
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.
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."
And the worst part is when there's a "courteous" dumbass with a gap behind him and then a platoon of cars behind that. If he just went immediately then I could pull out behind him. But because he tried to wait on me instead of just getting out of the way (but then eventually went when he realized that I refused to go out-of-turn), the gap behind him closed and now I have to wait for the whole damn platoon. Thanks, dumbass!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Me? Rude? Oh my.... Patience is a virtue you know.
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.
Is this related to the dumbasses who wave at you to go when you don't have the right of way? I see this all the time around here at 4 way stop signs. Sometimes they wave me on to go ahead of them when they have the right of way, sometimes they do it when I clearly have the right of way. I don't need your stupid waving. I learned how stop signs work as a requirement for getting a drivers license.
The worst are the people who will stop before an intersection to allow you to make a left hand turn. On a road with two lanes in each direction and themselves in the left hand lane, so that your view of the oncoming traffic in the right hand lane is blocked. I can only assume they are waving me on because they want me to crash into the car in the right hand lane, who did something to piss them off previously.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
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.
Obviously... i'm trying to mock the dump red light camera stuff, where if your car happens to be sitting 2" over the line at the moment that the light turns red, or your car hydroplanes and skids 3" past in the pouring rain, due to an unexpected puddle in front of the intersection, you get a $200 ticket in the mail.
Yes comrade. Where do I show you my papers?
The shredder's 5 feet down the hall, and on your left, toss them in there.
Then on your right side, pick up a random stack (I don't care which).
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.
One time, I was trying to make a left turn into oncoming traffic. The first car stopped and waved me on. The problem is, there were two lanes, and if I had gone in front of "Mr Nice", I would have gotten clobbered by the car in the other lane that didn't stop!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Been there, and griped about it just before I saw your post. My guess is that "Mr Nice" was a bleeping idiot who didn't see the car in the other lane. I'm just glad I held back until I could see it.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
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?
The thing is, drivers should be predictable
DING DING DING!!! Give that man a e-cigar!
Today: I'm getting on the on-ramp doing 40-ish. Light traffic, two cars in my wanna-be lane doing 65, nothing behind them. Fine, they'll pass me and I'll speed up and merge, no problem at all.
What happens? The first guy slows down to let me in and flashes his lights, while the guy behind him has to slow way down. I floor it and merge in, now leading the way.
Had he let me worry about merging myself into traffic like he's supposed to do, it would have been easier for all of us. He had to slow down and speed up, the guy behind him got a surprise, and I had to quickly speed up and merge to make him happy.
If everything's bumper to bumper I could see him letting me squeeze in if I was close to the end of the ramp, but otherwise treat me as invisible. -- or maybe NOT, but you know what I mean.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Maybe people who are easily confused should not become drivers? A safe driver should always expect the unexpected.
There are some places near me where the only ways to get onto the road from an adjoining street is either to have someone be courteous, jam your way in forcefully, wait a few hours. The platoon never ends and there's never a gap. The easiest way is to avoid those turns altogether and take a detour.
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.
It can come in handy for situation in which the person who has the right of way is unclear. For instance, if I get to a stop sign slightly before a person to my right gets to the same intersection. If you go by who was there first, I have the right of way. If you assume the time difference between when we got there was negligible, they have the right of way. A courteous wave can speed things along.
It also works for when the other person has the right of way and doesn't know how stop signs work. Going out of turn could be dangerous and open you up to fault if the other car decides to go. Waving them through is the safest way to approach it, even if they deserve a one-fingered wave for not knowing how the stop sign works.
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
"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.
It's a good idea, except that the popped tires would cause the car to lose control and likely hit an uninvolved person or vehicle.
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
" The problem is, there were two lanes, and if I had gone in front of "Mr Nice", I would have gotten clobbered by the car in the other lane that didn't stop!"
it's called pulling into the first lane and then merging over into the other lane... NOT crossing 5 lanes of traffic at once (or even two).
" Maybe what we need are automatic tire spikes that rise when the light turns red.."
and when someone tries to run it and blows tires and is stuck there blocking the lane and intersection? how does changing the punishment alter the behavior?
If you do that in any city I live in I will take a baseball bat to it.
You'll have missed the fine print that says "Do not take a baseball bat to city equipment", together with the baseball bat detection cam which will scan the barcode on the bat and facial recognition software to identify the bat swinger from the National ID picture database and, immediately deduct $50,000 from the checking account of each whoever bought the bat and whoever possesses the bat, and freeze all other assets pending confirmation of adequate payment, to help defray the cost of a new camera system.
Seriously.... I'm joking.
How about doing what other countries do and giving drivers our own damn timers to let us know when our lights are going to change?
I'll give you one better: ALL light colors.... Green, Yellow, Red, should have a 'countdown until color change'. It would be extremely helpful.
I'm generally good at picking up sarcasm but missed it in your post, lost in the sea of do-gooder posts.
Right, but I've even seen what you're suggesting happen. This is when this "kindness" is at its most frustrating.
You sit and wait for a gap to get out of a junction. You see a gap, and you get yourself ready to slot into it. Then the jerk in front of the gap decides to be "kind" and slows down to try and let you out. He inevitably miscalculates, and ends up not letting you out, and also closing the gap behind him.
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.
I like your thinking, but there do seem to be some flaws with the idea: Emergency vehicles will be impeded in getting to where they need to be, and the system would probably not be immune to mechanical failures or power outages.
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
oh it is completely impractical and would be a terrible idea, but it still gives me warm fuzzies.
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?
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.