Slashdot Mirror
NYC Asks Google Maps For Fewer Left Turns
An anonymous reader writes: Members of the New York City Council have sent a letter to Google asking that its Maps navigation system provide users an option to "reduce left turns." Pedestrian safety is the issue they're trying to improve. In the U.S., a quarter of all accidents involving pedestrians happen while a vehicle is making a left turn. "The first cause of death for New York City children under 13 is not gangs, it's not poverty, not violence. It's being hit by cars and trucks. This is the time for the city to reach out to the private sector, so they can help us to provide information to drivers about where you should avoid making left turns." The council members are also asking for an option that would let truckers stay on known truck routes, hoping that would prevent the problems that arise when big-rigs wander onto streets not large enough to safely accommodate them.
... because, of course, a city writing a letter asking a company to do something is exactly the same as requiring it - at least in the eyes of certain slashdot political pundits.
I expect this comment will be moderated down "troll" or "flamebait" by the same members of slashdot's conservative majority that will be up-moderating "insightful" the first nanny state comment.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
they could just put up "no left turn" signs
It takes money to order and install such signs. Then those requirements impede profit later on, as well. That plan won't fly. Instead they spent a few days' worth of city council time writing a letter to ask someone else to provide an optional work-around.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Making a request like this seems very reasonable and hopefully Google will be able to improve their service in this regard.
That's a supremely good idea. Left turns from/to two-way streets are difficult and disruptive in New York City.
Except... don't pedestrians fall under threat from right turns, too?
Left turn = three right turns. Three times safer, right?
...turning NYC into New Jersey.
Sometimes a left turn is necessary. Having Google maps put a higher cost in the algorithm for left turns, the system can then determine better if a left turn should be made or three rights. It isn't about eliminating them entirely (as it isn't practical to do so), it is about reducing.
I live in Ireland, you insensitive clod!
Apparently it also reduces fuel consumption and saves time
http://compass.ups.com/UPS-dri...
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
But i wanted to keep turning left in my stock car!!!! We dont make right turns
If left turns are such a big deal, why not simply make them illegal, or only allow them at a restricted set of intersections?
Surely that would affect more people than changing googles algorithm?
Truckers shouldn't use google maps anyway - they don't provide legal truck routes. There are other applications out there like ALK PC Miler that provides truck routes based on verified truck routes, height and weight limits, etc.
I'm not sure that Google wants to get into that game, at least not providing a free product.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I wonder if they read their own statistics.
According to the document above, malignant neoplasm is the #1 cause of death for children under 13. Myabe they should send a letter to Google asking that maps also cure cancer.
"I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
From TFA: "17 pedestrians and three bicyclists were killed in New York by left-turning vehicles last year." I think that is an acceptable number. Let's move on.
Avoiding these left turns will obviously come at a time penalty to the driver or they wouldn't be making them in the first place. OTOH: pedestrian + car collisions have a time cost function of their own. Will Waze have to cooperate as well, or will alternatives to Google Maps just exploit this arbitrage opportunity and fill the vacuum created by Google Maps?
At some point, the preference to avoid left turns will create a large enough disparity between route times that the left turn avoidance will be canceled out by the time advantage of the alternative route.
I think they can bias the algorithm and reduce fatalities, but by how much is an unknown. Traffic engineers can't necessarily fix this through bottleneck engineering because a right turn for some cars is a left turn for others. The lowest cost approach seems to be replacing Left+Right+Left with a single Left, and single Left's with 3x Rights.
There are certain roads I prefer to take and others I prefer to avoid, certain maneuvers I prefer to make and others I dislike. Example: especially if I'm navigating someplace unfamiliar, I'd much rather take the "least complicated" route that involves the fewest turns, especially if the time saving is less than 15 minutes.
Google Maps tracks this, both if I'm putting together the route on the computer (for printing out and taking with me) or if I'm actually navigating. And yet its suggested directions never change. It seems like there'd be MORE than enough data accumulated in a relatively small number of drives for GMaps (or Waze, is after all owned by Google, or whatever) to notice "Ah, this person hates taking non-protected left turns," or, "this person will not take the beltway for any more than a half-hour's time savings," and to adjust the directions it gives accordingly. They personalize search results. Why not directions?
We don't control either your traffic laws or your traffic, so politely fuck off.
The request for right turn optimized routes seems reasonable, but the truck route seems stupid to me. If you're operating a large truck you should be using truck optimized commercial software, not freaking Google Maps. There are all sorts of things like bridge height, earlier lane alignment alerts (it takes a LOT longer to get an opening big enough for a big rig), hazmat restrictions, etc that the commercial packages take into account that google maps is unlikely to ever add so giving a truck route option seems like it would give drivers a false sense that google maps is an acceptable alternative to what they should really be using.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
As a motorcyclist, I avoid left turns like the plague.
Not for safety reasons, but because I don't want to sit there for 15 minutes waiting for a car that weighs enough to pull up behind me to trigger the lights to turn green.
We waste so much of our lives waiting at red lights its baffling!
</semi-tangent>
Switch to driving on the left.
Could someone explain for the non-Americans why it is possible to have cars turning left at a green light, at the same time as pedestrians crossing the road have a green light? What was the thinking behind this? And why is the solution not just to stop this happening?
"a quarter of all accidents involving pedestrians happen while a vehicle is making a left turn"
This "statistic" doesn't seem all that meaningful especially in the context of safety. For all we know 1/4 happen when the vehicle is turning right, 1/4 when going straight and 1/4 when backing up (actual statistics are probably significantly higher when going forward though). Also not brought up is who is actually at fault in car/pedestrian accidents. Its all well and good to say "the pedestrian always has the right of way" to make checking a box on an accident report easier but when a reasonable driver could not physically have stopped for some fool darting out into traffic its a little hard to realistically say the driver is at fault.
NYC should just ask Google to track children in real-time and let drivers know when one is nearby. And especially flag the ones who aren't being watched by an adult; they're way more likely to play in traffic.
Pervasive surveillance... it's for the children!
Log in or piss off.
1/4th of accidents occur when going in 1 of 4 directions.... imagine that :)
...much stricter driving examinations instead?
100% of pedestrian accidents occur from being hit by a vehicle going straight, reverse, left or right, so 25% for left turns, seems like what one would expect.
However, if the New York city council is so concerned about it, wouldn't it make more sense to not allow left turns instead of asking Google Maps to give right turn only directions?
We could add a pedestrian cycle to all stop lights which halts all traffic and lets people walk in all four directions at once. ;)
-Xen
knows that the problem with traffic safety isn't left turns. It's that drivers (especially cabbies) plow through thickly settled areas well above the speed limit, and bicyclists are equally aggressive.
If you're operating a large truck you should be using truck optimized commercial software, not freaking Google Maps.
Operating a large truck != Working for a large company. Plenty of trucks are small or solo operations with very small budgets. Google Maps is about as sophisticated as these operations are going to get. Many trucks that deliver to us don't have a GPS or navigation aid of any description.
In an area with a regular grid of city blocks, such as Manhattan, one can make three right turns. But this becomes impractical in parts of cities where most junctions are T-style.
When Google stops turning left in its politics, then it can start actually having a balanced view of things.
I missed the part of the story that endorses gun deaths. I guess that as long as NYC has crime (a city of 8.5 million), it's unacceptable to
Aw, never mind.
It's called getting some priorities. Traffic fatalities outnumber peacetime firearm fatalities.
Because in the context of government "asking" is usually accompanied by a thinly veiled threat of some kind. Think of the context of the police asking to "look inside" your home without a warrant. It is usually in the context of "Well, we could go get a warrant but if you let us in without one we'll be nice. If we have to get a warrant we're going to be "more thorough" (IE tear the house to pieces)". In this specific case it is probably indirectly accompanied by the suggestion that if they don't give the city what they want Google may find themselves on the cities "black ball" list, having any requests for information/cooperation/contract put through every piece of red tape available giving their competitors given significant advantage.
There is a way to eliminate all left turns EVERYWHERE.
All intersections could be replaced with roundabouts.
It would eliminate stop lights and naturally calm traffic.
Of course, this is NYC and the grid system being discussed.
How did the Dutch do it in Amsterdam would be the question to ponder next, I reckon.
How about just adding some "No Left Turn" signs on streets where the city is concerned about the problem? I don't see why this should be Google's problem and I doubt they'll see a lot of voluntary usage even if it were available.
Yours Sincerely,
Derek Zoolander
If you want Google to add a feature to benefit your city then offer to pay for the feature to be added. They are a business after all.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I'm a bicyclist, and I have two tips that may help. First, it's not weight as much as metal surface area. So if you can see the crack in the road where the induction loop is buried, try making a chord with your bike, placing both wheels directly over the loop.
The second tip is a bit of argumentum ad nauseam. Every time you have to wait at least five minutes, report the offending intersection to the city. If on or crossing a state highway, also report it to the state. If they're anything like Indiana, they'll eventually get the hint and enact a dead red law that allows treating an induction-loop-actuated red light as a flashing red after two minutes of failure to detect.
Does NYC have data to show that most accidents involving left turns are due to Google maps and not due to some other program/device?
I live in the UK. Here, traffic is stopped entirely across the intersection and pedestrians are allowed to use all the crossings. There's no crossing when any side of the intersection has a green light for cars.
After living in the UK for so long, I went to visit a friend in Germany and it took me by surprise when after making a left turn there was a pedestrian crossing the road... and he had a green light too.
I find the idea of letting both traffic and pedestrians on the road at the same time stupid and irresponsible.
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
Under the United States MUTCD, a turn facing a green arrow is a "protected" left turn. Pedestrians have a "don't cross" signal during this phase. A turn facing a green disk is considered a "permitted" left turn, where oncoming traffic has the right of way. As with a yield sign, it is permitted to enter the intersection and to proceed through it once vehicular and pedestrian traffic have cleared. Some cities are experimenting with using a flashing yellow arrow instead of a green disk for a permitted left turn to emphasize the "yield" interpretation.
Could someone explain for the non-Americans why it is possible to have cars turning left at a green light, at the same time as pedestrians crossing the road have a green light?
First, because there is nothing to physically prevent pedestrians from crossing the road at any time, even when it is inadvisable to do so or when signs even directly instruct the pedestrians not to cross.
Second, the general rule in most parts of the US is that pedestrians cross in the same direction as the traffic flow. That's how the cross-walk signals are programmed. Not all cross walks have crossing signals either though they are rather common. The vehicle traffic is always moving because stopping it for pedestrian traffic would seriously slow down traffic flow. In a city like NYC I cannot imagine the gridlock that would happen if they stopped the cars completely. If you argue that there is a better solution out there I might not disagree with you but that's how it is done for better or worse.
And why is the solution not just to stop this happening?
You can't stop it completely. You can mitigate it potentially but the only way to stop it completely is to prevent pedestrians from ever crossing the road ever.
Left turn signals are the worst. The pedestrians have the right of way and are crossing the street, but the idiot driver in the multi-ton death machine sees a green arrow and thinks he can just drive through the people.
I would think the algorithm's heaviest weight would be on the ‘distance’. If so then strictly speaking a longer route increases the probability of accidents. Also if 'time constraint' is rather used, a route that takes a longer time, can possibly make drivers more irritated and thereby also impact accident probability negatively. Just some extra thoughts to also take into consideration...
they could just put up "no left turn" signs
That wold be fine, if Google cared. Hey, they fixed the "turn left" where there's a "no left turn" they send me the last time - but the U-turn they want me to do on the next intersection where there's a "no U-turn" sign is hardly better. At least in Germany Google Maps' database is still lousy.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
What happened to parents teaching their kids basic safety, and the old adage about "Looking both ways before crossing the street"?
Seriously...do parents not teach kids the basic things about life? Don't talk to strangers, look both ways, cross street at intersections, etc.
I guess I'm just puzzled why what used to be common sense has suddenly gone straight out the fucking window?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Of course, that's not the fundamental issue... which is:
The turning driver has a green light right when pedestrians have the walk light
When your city can reasonably be ranked as the top pedestrian city in the world, it might behoove you to plan accordingly by not putting your pedestrians directly into oncoming traffic.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Too much traffic is causing accidents, but limiting hired vehicles based on medallions system is EVIL. Well, evil for new startups who want to do livery services. The new startups are just fine with existing companies being limited by the medallion system.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I have seen routes evolve on Google Maps - i.e. where it started to learn side roads and other shortcuts.
Granted, the two examples I can think of changed over a period of at least a year, and might not be as noticeable as after you've driven a route a few times, you might not be using Google Maps the next time you drive it.
Also, there's the "a faster route has become available" which will pop up, mostly due to reported accidents and changing traffic patterns.
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
but three rights make a left!
Some lights have separate segments where it's only straight or only left-turn. Pedestrians only have the walk sign during the straight traffic.
As for all others (or pretty much any situation) pedestrians have right-of-way. Seems that's true even if they're jaywalking, crossing against the light, riding a bike across the crosswalk, etc.
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
One of the biggest annoyances I have in every big city I drive in, including NYC (and Toronto, Chicago, etc.) is that pedestrians walk when it has a 'don't walk' symbol with the impunity of someone that's protected by law from drivers, protected like a force shield that will prevent anyone from hitting them blissfully walking across the street while texting. Sure, it's against the law to run people over despite their inability to follow signs but at the same time if more pedestrians did what they were supposed to, we'd have a lot fewer deaths. When was the last time you've seen someone get a ticket for jaywalking?
At any given intersection, there are only two possible turns that involve entering a crosswalk that pedestrians legally occupy: right or left. If 25% of all accidents involving pedestrians are occurring at left turns, isn't that statistically the safer turn?
Also, why isn't the city council working on making pedestrians less stupid?
So, Zoolander was based in real NY people.
When we discussed the medallions system in a previous article from 2014, presumably one about Uber, someone mentioned that because taxis occupy space on the road, this space should be treated as "curbside real estate". We ended up concluding that the problem is not with taxi medallions and liquor licenses per se as much as allowing them to become objects of price speculation and inheritance fights. The city should have leased them instead of selling them.
re-enable their classic view But I'm nobody. :(
more right hooks. Thanks NYC!
they could just put up "no left turn" signs
...which would snarl NYC traffic way worse than it already is. It's one thing to have a nav app work out a no-left-turn route for you, but are we going to expect to just know how to do so on their own?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Yep, Mythbusters tested this with simulated delivery runs in San Francisco, with and without left turns. The no-left-turns route saved significant time and gas.
Mind, cars can take advantage of smaller gaps in traffic to make those left turns (better acceleration than trucks), but that same better acceleration may be a partial cause of the increased number of accidents (they're making the turn faster while they can -- right turns you can be a bit more patient because you know you'll get another chance soon, and most places let you turn right on a red.)
"The first cause of death for New York City children under 13"
How many deaths do children get in New York?
First cause of death: Traffic.
Second cause of death: Silver bullets.
Third cause of death: Staking.
Fourth cause of death: Beheading.
Fifth cause of death: Kill it with fire.
Sixth cause of death: Exorcism.
Seventh cause of death: Dream Warriors.
Does this reason still apply since the Offensive Weapons Act 1996, which bans carrying a knife in public except with "good reason or lawful authority", such as "for use at work; for religious reasons; or as part of any national costume"? (Source)
maybe traffic is snarled because all of the jerks stopped for left turns? why should one car take so much priority over everyone else that they can hold up dozens behind them? ban left turns.
Living not much more than a metaphorical stone's throw from the Canada-USA border, I always find it annoying when I am planning a largely east-west route for a trip and google's first (and sometimes only) suggestions are to take routes which cross that border, and one time while I was planning a family vacation, and wanted to pass through a particular place that was also quite near the border, it suggested that we cross the border two more times for the whole trip! I don't have anything against really going into or travelling inside of another country, when I actually have some business to attend to there, but whenever I am crossing the border for whatever reason, I always find that the wait times at the border crossings are quite long... (one time in particular I recall waiting for about 3 hours... and my shortest wait ever was still about 45 minutes), and adding the average amount of time it seems to take onto a trip would end up making what is otherwise a trip that can be comfortably completed in one day easily running into two unless I were to push myself past my normal endurance and risk driving while tired. Despite my proximity to the border, I actually don't really have occasion to travel across the border very often, so it makes no sense for me to invest in any kind of "frequent flier" membership that would enable me to use the faster lanes. Still very annoying when using google maps, I often have to manually drag points along the suggested route back across the border into my own country.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
As far as I know they're still available - GPS systems which have specialised information such as hight of bridges, road widths, etc that don't matter if you're driving a car but as essential if you've got a real sized truck. Of course these devices and the maps cost much more so many drivers take the cheaper alternative and that's why you read stories of trucks stuck under bridges or going down narrowe country lanes.
Google Maps routing is pretty poor quality for the number of years we are from dashboard GPS and desktop routing software. Streets and Trips 2002 did a better job at handling multiple destinations by a huge margin.
Google Maps puts inappropriate weight towards making a route more complicated with short freeway hops (hop on for the next immediate exit). It also looks like they are taking some kind of payola from toll authorities, as it frequently tries to give toll routes when a non-toll route has an ETA within 1-2 minutes.
Lastly, their lack of intelligence on street construction (major multi-month/year affairs) is pathetic when the exact advantage of an online based mapping service should be current, dynamic updates. The only area they are leveraging there is current traffic knowledge, yet they fail to notice when a major street abruptly hits 0 traffic, indicating a closure.
The driving preferences should be vastly more granular and more than on/off check boxes for weighted route offerings. It would be nice if they would bring back future predicted ETAs to the web product and add it to the smartphone apps.
Keep in mind they still call it "Beta" software.
I like Google, I am fine exchanging a controllable portion of anonymized habits for free services, but just keep in mind that they are having trouble serving two masters.
Google Maps puts inappropriate weight towards making a route more complicated with short freeway hops
I wouldn't exclusively blame Google for this though.
I travel regularly to the USA on business, and I've used rental GPSes (Garmin / TomTom) as well as Apple and Google services on my phones. They all seem to do this equally - I'm always puzzled why I'm merging on and off in a 1/4 mile....
If you've ever been to New York City, you'll realize that the problem isn't so much the cars as the pedestrians. It's pretty common for people to walk across the first lane of traffic before looking to see if more cars are coming. This isn't a car problem. It isn't distractions. It's a mindset. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That list shows 17 out of 25 of the world's top pedestrian cities as being in of the US, 2 of those outside being in Canada. That leaves 6 for the rest of the world.
I'm not usually one to complain about lists and articles being US-centric, but that is a little absurd.
As a truck driver, I'm having a difficult time understanding how left turns are more dangerous than right turns. This is the opposite of both my training and my experience. It's not for nothing that the passenger side of the truck is called the "blind side". When turning left, I have a full view of the truck, and where it's going. Not so much while turning right. I think the same applies to cars, although not to such a degree. They're talking about hitting children, but again, you have a much better view of the crosswalk, turning left, as well as a little more distance.
One more thing - I've driven a big truck on the streets of NYC. It's almost impossible to make a right turn in a tractor-trailer. There simply isn't enough room on most streets. Even left turns are a MF, because cars will be parked all the way up to the corner.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Seriously, when was the last time you used Google maps? Not only the one on my mobile phone but the one on my desktop tries to give me first the quickest route (which usually involves hiways for long periods of time), second an optional route with no tolls, third several other route choices of different combinations. No seriously, they have had an "avoid tolls" check box on there site for the longest time.
Lastly, it tends to be faster than my garmin at recalculating (and more precise) but my garmin is like 6ish years old so that probably has little to do with them and far more to do with me failing to update my tech.
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
When my parents come over to visit the US they always comment on the comedy of trying to cross a street.
And I'm sure there is nothing peculiar at all about traffic in the UK. (yes that is sarcasm) We have what we call "ugly americans" who when they travel think that everything should be just like it is here in the US and say so loudly. Apparently folks across the pond have their own version of it and they think everything should be just like in the UK. I think your parents need to get over it.
In England we're always taught that an intersection is *the most dangerous place* to attempt to cross a street, even with signals. In America that's the only way to cross a street.
It is most assuredly NOT the only way to cross a street in the US. The only place you are generally prohibited from crossing is IN the intersection itself which is an obviously stupid thing to do anyway. Most corners in big cities have crosswalks with crossing signals and they are commonplace even in small towns. You can cross the streets anywhere along them generally. Technically you have the right of way as a pedestrian but since in a car-pedestrian collision the pedestrian will lose only an idiot or a child would cross without being careful. People cross at crosswalks in big cities mostly because there are buildings in the way except on the outside of the city block. Also pedestrians are expected at crosswalks so there is some amount of safety in doing what is expected and routine.
Anyone read the data sheet? According to the sheet New York had a total of 335 pedestrians hit in the year 2013. Out of that 335, 44 car where turning left. That’s 13%. Over the course of the 4 years listed it was 135 out of 1228. That’s 11%. That pales in comparison by the number of pedestrians hit when the car was going straight at 924 out of 1228.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about adding 4 block to every left turn? That sounds like a metric shitton of pollution.
It actually saves gas. UPS does this on their routes - right turns only. Actually cuts down on fuel, shortens travel time (less time at lights) and reduces accidents. It sounds counter intuitive but apparently it actually works.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
FYI:
You cannot turn right on red in NYC unless explicitly posted. This is the opposite of the rest of New York State and there are very few places where it is posted that you may do so.
There are very few streets with dedicated turn lanes and turn signals in NYC. None I know of in Manhattan, some that exist in the outer edges of the outer boroughs like Queens.
I thought that either the summary got the story wrong, or NYC is somehow uniquely weird, like the UK and driving on the other side of the road. Perhaps their research is simply terribly flawed. I think it likely that it is more prone to reporting problems... or something...
As you say, it isn't the left hand turns that are a problem, it is the right hand turns on a red. While not NY, I walk a lot, and I've been hit or almost hit several times. Every single one of those were people turning right at a red light, not looking the other way.
This is exasperated by one way streets, and high traffic volume during certain times of the day.
They could probably save more pedestrians by targeting certain busy intersections, and not allowing right hand turns on red lights, or at least during peek hours.
Also as someone mentioned, less left hand would mean even more right hand turns...
There are already truck GPS units with the ability to route the vehicle safely on roads designed to handle/accommodate a tractor trailer.
Ken
Remember how the community exploded when MS announced they'd offer their users the ability to get routes that specifically avoid unsafe/high crime areas?
Ken
It takes money to order and install such signs. Then those requirements impede profit later on, as well. That plan won't fly. Instead they spent a few days' worth of city council time writing a letter to
get somebody else to pay for it.
"Minimize turns".
On a recent trip, I knew that I could get there by going down to a major road, follow that to the start of another major road, then ride down that for about half an hour to get directly to my destination. However, I didn't know exactly where that destination would be, and I have a tendency to overshoot places, so I let Google drive me there. Even after removing toll roads from the equation, it led me down a completely separate path that involved all kinds of turns and twists. All told, took just as long as the route I would have taken, but was much, much more stressful because it was such a complex route.
It's a fundamental issue with intersections that have both vehicle and foot traffic. The only time it's 100% safe for pedestrians to go is when there's no traffic across that particular crosswalk. However, that's never actually the case. Best case is you have right-turn traffic going across the traffic, but that's still some traffic, and a driver not paying attention might still hit someone. If you gave pedestrians a "don't walk" if there's any potential traffic across the crosswalk, then they would never get to go.
In the U.S., a quarter of all accidents involving pedestrians happen while a vehicle is making a left turn.
Let me guess, a quarter of all accidents involving pedestrians happen while a vehicle is making a right turn, a quarter of all accidents while a vehicle is going straight, and a quarter of all accidents while a vehicle is in reverse?
It takes money to order and install such signs. Then those requirements impede profit later on, as well. That plan won't fly.
Cop-out. It would work fine. The City Council doesn't have the balls to fund and implement it. They would much rather ask a company to put itself at a competitive disadvantage for the Council's benefit. That's what you get when you elect socialist paper pushers with no sense of reality or ethical courage.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Traffic gets snarled, but cops have a greater opportunity to dispense traffic tickets for blocking traffic and making left turns.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
My wife is Taiwanese. In Taipei, at certain times of the day, not only are the lights red in all directions, but diagonal crossing is permitted. Diagonal crosswalks are painted on the streets. In Harrisburg, there are many intersections where all vehicular traffic has a red light while pedestrian crossing signals are on. The real answer does seem to be stopping the cars. Also consider mid-block crossings controlled with a light so that cars have to stop mid-block for pedestrians.
You used to be able to save "never use toll roads". You can't do that anymore and must turn it on each time now. That smells like payola to a lot of people.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Seriously, NY is the land of one-way streets. Even in the outer boroughs, the number of two-way streets is vanishingly small. There is no practical difference in the position of cars vs. pedestrians in this scenario. On any turn, I'll be turning into pedestrian traffic. When you walk in NYC, you're head is on a swivel. You pay attention or you risk getting hit and if you're in a car, you end up in the middle of intersections waiting on pedestrians. I'd be surprised if Google's algorithm didn't actually favor right hand turns in NYC, as in most places right-on-red is still legal and having driven their for over 3 decades, it's like UPS says, you get there faster if you restrict yourself to right turns.
...start enforcing laws.
Idiots crossing when they aren't supposed to leads to a large number of those deaths...
Instead of waiting to turn in the middle lane, stop in the intersection on the right, directly in front of the traffic waiting to go straight through. When the light changes turn left and proceed at the front of the lane of traffic.
They would much rather ask a company to put itself at a competitive disadvantage for the Council's benefit.
How would it put a company at a competitive disadvantage when it would be an option? People could still get regular directions, or choose to get directions with fewer left turns...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Google maps now send places from our desktop to iphone
"Oh god it's going to turn red" is for solid yellow, not flashing yellow. An existing use of flashing yellow is at intersections that switch to flashing yellow in one direction and red in the other during late nights when there is no longer enough traffic to warrant a full set of signals.
Because implementing and supporting an extra option is not free of cost. That translates to a competitive burden, no matter how small.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Because implementing and supporting an extra option is not free of cost.
True, there is a cost to it.
That translates to a competitive burden, no matter how small.
However there is a real chance that some people might want to use such an option, which would translate to a competitive advantage. Navigating a large city such as NYC without left turns could be advantageous for quite a few drivers, and not just from a pedestrian safety standpoint.
Furthermore, the council is just asking for google to make the option available. Google could tell them no, and continue on with their day.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Drive straight ahead, turn right, turn left, reverse...4 options.
One of these causes 25% of all pedestrian accidents with vehicles.
Hard to imagine.
All left turns should be outlawed. And enforced. And necessary roads redesigns implemented.
It is what it is. Leave it alone!
that is lightweight error prone creatures interacting with super heavy weight high speed error prone creature systems (IE people and cars and bicycles and cars do not mix). In Houston you rarely need to be on the street due to all the underground tunnels so very few people get run over. .
Ted Cruze for President!!!