Slashdot Mirror


City Installs Traffic Lights In Sidewalks For Smartphone Users (washingtonpost.com)

tlhIngan writes: It's finally happened -- the smartphone zombies are here. The German city of Augsburg installed traffic lights in the sidewalks so smartphone users don't have to look up. Apparently people are so addicted to their smartphones they can't be bothered to look up at traffic signals, so embedding them in the ground they don't have to. According to the Washington Post report, the city spokeswoman Stephanie Lermen thinks the money used to install the lights is well spent. A recent survey conducted in several European cities including Berlin, found that almost 20 percent of pedestrians were distracted by their smartphones. Of course, younger people are at higher risk as they're willing to risk their safety to look at their Facebook profiles or WhatsApp messages, the survey found. The problem may be even worse in the U.S: A survey by the University of Washington found that 1 in 3 Americans is busy texting or working on a smartphone at dangerous road crossings. City officials say installing the traffic lights is justified: The idea is to install such traffic lights came after a 15-year-old girl was killed by a tram. According to police reports, she was distracted by her smartphone as she crossed the tracks.

195 comments

  1. Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Won't this problem fix itself after a while?

    1. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Won't this problem fix itself after a while?

      I was thinking the same thing....what a wonderful opportunity to see natural selection at work, in real time.

      I think one of the reasons we're seeing so many inept and stupid people out there (and c'mon, you gotta admit you see them every day)...is that we've been protecting people from themselves WAAAAY too much, and have prevented nature from adding chlorine to the gene pool at appropriate times.

      As the previous post alluded to...let nature take care of this situation itself.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Survival of the non brain dead.

      We have an excess of people already.

    3. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the collateral damage (both to drivers in other cars and to property) caused by drivers trying to avoid these idiots would be unfortunate.

    4. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by bsolar · · Score: 1

      You underestimate the idiots' ability to outbreed any natural selective pressure thrown at them.

    5. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany is a car country. These traffic lights aren't meant to protect distracted pedestrians. Their purpose is to keep the plebs out of the way of the cars. The problem would be self-correcting, but who is going to pay for cleanup and repairs? Ever taken a German car to the shop?

      Joking aside: When a bike path is built in Germany, cyclists often have to be compelled to use it, because it's built to keep bicycles off the road and out of the way of the cars, and not to provide a good path for cyclists.

    6. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> the collateral damage...caused...these idiots would be unfortunate

      Yes, there's nothing more annoying than a two-hour train delay because there are shredded millennials all over the tracks again.

      Fortunately, we can look forward to next week's SlashDot story: "New APP warns dumbasses they are currently crossing rails with train approaching." (It could use the phone's microphone to listen for LOUD FUCKING HORNS and DING DING DING DING DING.)

    7. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That hits on one that's just had me bamboozled lately. I go to a gym during the winter months for the indoor track. And on different days the track goes different directions, with a big sign right as you enter the track which direction is on which days. I believe this is fairly standard. And it never ceases to amaze me how many people go the wrong way. And it's not like, get on the track and go the wrong way, see people going the other way, go back to check and correct, but like yesterday. Girl was literally weaving through traffic going the wrong way. Like probably 20 people on the track at the time, but stuck to her guns and kept going. She was on there for like half an hour. I was just desperately hoping she doesn't have a drivers license as I'd be terrified that if she went down a one way street the wrong way she'd stick to her guns and keep going. And it typically happens about twice a week. Different people every time. You'd think the swarm of people going the other direction would be a hint, but apparently not.

    8. Re: Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      #RetardHipstersThatFeelTheNeedToHashtagEverything

    9. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Look left, Look right, Look down...

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    10. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by dave420 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You'd rather have the financial impact of swathes of the population being killed in easily-preventable ways, just so you can feel superior to them?

    11. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by TroII · · Score: 1

      Wait, why does the direction of the track change from day to day? Is it some kind of moving walkway where they want the machine to wear evenly in both directions?

    12. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No. Just no. Yes, ADAC has lots of influence, and cars are indeed popular, but so is cycling. Cycle paths are generally created where cyclists want to ride their bikes, as otherwise the city will have to move them or have to pay for the upkeep of where the cyclists do ride, be it in maintenance or scraping people off the road.

    13. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd rather have the financial impact of swathes of the population being killed in easily-preventable ways, just so you can feel superior to them?

      No, I'd just rather the hoards of idiots that can't even bear to stare way from "their precious" long enough to miss oncoming traffic, get thinned out a bit, so as to allow those of us trying to get somewhere and do something to get on with it, and not have to dodge these mindless zombies.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      Considering the surveillance state most of the world has become, consult the traffic cams, if the person hit by a vehicle was paying more attention to their phone, it's all their fault. They pay their own medical bills, and they pay to repair the damage they did to the car (unless there is proof that the car was driving illegally)

    15. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Yes. Brings down unemployment by opening up more jobs and eliminates excess population...

    16. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by edtice1559 · · Score: 3

      There isn't much financial impact of people getting killed. It's when they get seriously injured and live that it costs a lot of money. I'm not sure that we really want to see people dead when their transgression is reading /. on their mobile phone while walking, but from a pure economic standpoint, dying is cheap.

    17. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Bike paths are generally created where they tore up the rails, just before the same sorts of people want the rails back.

    18. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by PPH · · Score: 1

      This is why people put bull bars/grill guards on SUVs that never leave civilization. Mine were motivated at first by Idaho stops. But they are equally effective for pedestrians with cell phones.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    19. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by mlts · · Score: 2

      This sounds like a 24 Hour Fitness in Austin. It has a track that flips directions on different days, with a fairly obvious sign pointing this out. Oddly enough, there is always that one person that just likes going the wrong way on the track even though they have to dodge everyone else.

      Maybe it is practice for the hike and bike trails here.

    20. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >> the collateral damage...caused...these idiots would be unfortunate

      Yes, there's nothing more annoying than a two-hour train delay because there are shredded millennials all over the tracks again.

      Cowcatchers. Problem solved.

    21. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Not only is it not a self-correcting problem; this is already a failed solution.

      We have had pedestrian walk/don't walk lights for decades now. They are mostly ignored. Mostly rightfully so since it is often safe to walk when they say not to, but, many pedestrians act as if they have right of way even if the crosswalk is signaled and says don't walk.

      So, how is adding a new light, which has the same meaning as the one people are already ignoring, supposed to help in any way? Frankly, I think these traffic control people are scrambling to come up with ways to remain relevant after they have done everything they can and all the future advancements in safety will really be from robotic cars and likely never again anything they do.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    22. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      hoards of idiots

      Please stop hoarding idiots.

    23. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by PPH · · Score: 2

      Our town already employs a guy with a pickup truck and shovel to clear possums and raccoons off the road when they get hit. This is just job security.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    24. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Yup. Darwin should be taking care of these morons.

    25. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      It's not a genetically-inherited trait, it's an acquired one.
      None of the teenagers zombie-walking while looking at their phones have parents who did that when they were young, simply because there were no smartphones back then.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    26. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Won't this problem fix itself after a while?"

      Exactly! Just think of it as evolution in action.

    27. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A few changes in the law to minimize driver culpability towards jaywalkers and other pedestrians who don't follow the rules (such as look both ways before they leap) might result in a spike of deaths by inattention, but afterwards, the rest should mend their ways. If not, I won't lose much sleep over these morons being killed off by their busyboxes. Thinning the herd keeps broken adaptation to a minimum. I'd also minimize the impact of broken financial systems that assign an individual's responsibility for stupidity to others.

    28. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's putting a light where the people not looking *forward* are more likely to see it.

    29. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right.. this will drop birthrates of the most stupid. This would fight the idiocracy.

    30. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cycle paths are almost always too narrow (objectively, there are rules for this) and often on the wrong side of the road. Cyclists using them are usually forced to yield to all other traffic, even to turning traffic when the cycle path stays with the straight. On many cycle paths, the risk of a severe collision with motorized traffic is actually significantly higher than on the road. Cyclists don't need to be told to use the relatively few good cycle paths, but sign 237 is everywhere, because far too many cycle paths serve one purpose only: To keep cyclists off the roads, which cyclists would prefer over many bike paths, given a choice. Separating cyclists from motorized traffic used to be the officially stated intention for building bike paths. A lot of new bike paths are still made compulsory, even in violation of the law. More than a decade after the StVO reform which abolished general compulsory bike path use, police will still stop and reprimand you for cycling on the road if there is a (legally non-compulsory) bike path next to it. I'm speaking from experience. Things are improving, but oh so slowly.

    31. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      You'd rather have the financial impact of swathes of the population being killed in easily-preventable ways, just so you can feel superior to them?

      Technology moves fast. Infrastructure last decades or longer. In 10 or 20 years time, will we be carrying around a handheld device and looking down at it? Maybe we will be using something else. Audio cues seem like a better option to me. Cheaper and faster to implement, a single location that needs to be maintained, and they would help people with poor eyesight too.

      If we really need another visual clue on the ground, painted textured tiles are a lot easier to maintain and will still work after a flood.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    32. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Once and for all, let Darwin be proven correct. What is it going to cost us, educating the population?

      I'm not sure I'm on the same page as you regarding what you consider swathes of the population, so let me ask pointedly - how many children are you thinking it equates to?

    33. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't it neat that it's instinctive that if you mention girls that you expect empathy/sympathy. Of course boys and men have been disposable for awhile now, that's ok though?

    34. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >financial impact ??
          It shouldn't have to be LEGISLATED. People walking into traffic by VOLUNTARILY being self-absorbed is their own fault. The term Distracted Driving is a slippery term because it presents the driver as doing their best to pay attention, and darn if that mobile device didn't make them text OK while they're supposed to be driving.

      Voluntary inattentiveness should not be rewarded, (though lawyers may disagree since the lack of a city-minder holding pedestrians' hands walking around the city presents many a money making case. Result? Hand holding minders coming to a city near you).

    35. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason for having everyone go the same direction is pretty obvious. I'm assuming the reason they change direction instead of always stay the same is so that the regular gym member don't get stronger in one leg or something weird like that.

    36. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.
      It's not a genetically-inherited trait, it's an acquired one.
      None of the teenagers zombie-walking while looking at their phones have parents who did that when they were young, simply because there were no smartphones back then.

      This acquired trait is still likely to be passed down to offspring indirectly so it should still be effective.

    37. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by sdoca · · Score: 4, Informative

      Assuming you're legitimately asking, despite your user name...

      It's because indoor running tracks are generally short (~200m) and you are running on the curve for about 50% of it. If you run alot and always run the same way, you will build up a muscle imbalance.

    38. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What horrible impact would losing swathes of idiot millennials cause? They don't pay taxes. No losses there. All their carbon footprints would vanish. We can finally stop dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator. Their juvenile interpretations of life would cease to exist, allowing the rest of us to live in peace (and quiet).

    39. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few changes in the law to minimize driver culpability towards jaywalkers and other pedestrians who don't follow the rules (such as look both ways before they leap) might result in a spike of deaths by inattention, but afterwards, the rest should mend their ways. If not, I won't lose much sleep over these morons being killed off by their busyboxes. Thinning the herd keeps broken adaptation to a minimum. I'd also minimize the impact of broken financial systems that assign an individual's responsibility for stupidity to others.

      You're stupidly ignoring the fact that, (and despite being German at that,) the drivers of the vehicles that hit these pedestrians MIGHT not feel like you do. Maybe some of them might feel bad and lose sleep at night, and develop a complex where they simply can't drive anymore, after having KILLED SOMEONE, even someone you crassly, cruelly think deserved it because he/she was using a cellphone at the time.

      Then there's the fact that maybe the car hitting the pedestrian might even be damaged? And what about the person killed by the out-of-control vehicle that IS out of control because the driver can't see around the cellphone toting-pedestrian glued by his own blood and guts, to the poor bastard's windshield? THAT pedestrian wasn't doing ANYTHING wrong, you insensitive clod!

      I'll give you this, it's a strange decision, and I might have handled it in another way. How about embedding technology near roadways that forces a cellphone's screen to blank, or suddenly turn bright red if it is moving near a crosswalk? Just a little radio emitter that forces the phone's screens to go dark, or go red, when the user nears the sidewalk? You're staring at your phone while walking, suddenly... RED... you probably look up then.

      FTFY.

    40. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He whored his hoard of hordes.

    41. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Thank God to hear that there are others apart from me who hate cycle paths.

      The "cyclists" who ask for them are the ones who regard a bike as a glorified zimmer frame, and cycling as a form of walking. Cycle paths in the UK are designed assuming no-one rides at more than a brisk walking pace, and they are often marked with Give-Way signs not only at every road junction (and every other public road feature) but even at every private exit. I've seen residential streets with a driveway for every house (30-40 ft apart) with Give-Way markings on the cycle path at every one of them. The whole thing encourages drivers to ignore the existence of cyclists.

      In my nearest city, Bristol, creating "cycle paths" has degenerated into putting up signs telling cyclists to ride on the pavement (US sidewalk), and then more signs telling the cyclist to dismount and walk every time a side road is encountered.

    42. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      It is totally ignoring that people started ignoring the signals before they started staring at devices. Its not a matter of not seeing it...people have decided they don't care and don't need to pay attention. No amount of making the signal bigger, or moving it, is going to change that people don't give a shit about your signal.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    43. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      There isn't much financial impact of people getting killed.

      There is little immediate impact, but there is a big long term impact, as the lifetime production of that person doesn't happen. Most texters are young adults. Society has spent a lot to raise and educate them, but most of their productive years are in the future. For this reason, I am opposed to intentionally killing texting pedestrians. Killing texting drivers is okay.

    44. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Misagon · · Score: 1
      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    45. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Our town already employs a guy with a pickup truck and shovel to clear possums and raccoons off the road when they get hit.

      That is a silly waste of money. Just do what West Virginia has done, and legalize the gathering and consumption of roadkill. Then the roads will be cleaned up at no expense to the public. West Virginians will sometimes fight over dibs on dead racoon. They even have a Roadkill Cookoff with great recipes and plenty of samples to taste. My favorite is the possum chili.

    46. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      I live in a city where bikes have the right of way, most crossings have been removed (cars go around the city now, not through) and we have very wide paths for bikes. It makes cycling faster than taking the car for almost everything in town.

      I like it a lot. It's both healthier and cheaper. And for the kids who go to school it's safer as well.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    47. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by fropenn · · Score: 1

      Yes, just remember to never type on your phone when you arej;lkjoijoaij........

    48. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by fropenn · · Score: 1

      It is a good rule of thumb to never type on your phone while you alkj;lkj ;lkj;lkj ;lk....

    49. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      There's still Saturday Night Live? Who knew?

    50. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... drivers should be encouraged to simply mow down pedestrians who step into the road in front of them?

      Possibly you haven't been to Europe, but most drivers there don't do that, and don't want to.

    51. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      We're already superior to them. The financial impact? Hmmm. Fewer idiots, cleaner gene pool, lower unemployment....YES.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    52. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      At least those people were typically actually watching for traffic before taking a risk. It wasn't a Darwin move unless they were actually causing a hazard. The sign shouldn't read "Don't Walk", it should indicate that traffic has the right of way, so step out at your own risk...or more simply YIELD.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    53. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by computererds · · Score: 1

      No mod points today; glad someone is thinking with a wider view.

    54. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the texting driver hits the texting pedestrian. I doubt that traffic lights in the ground will make any difference. These self-centered idiots will still run along where they want claiming some right to do so.

    55. Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      If you're aiming for the "financial impact" argument... Are the people who get killed by not looking up before crossing the street really going to be a net positive, financially speaking, for society? Although I suppose you could argue that in countries with universal health care, it might be more expensive to treat the people who are hit but not killed.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  2. The Downward Spiral: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this subverting the natural course of evolution?

    1. Re:The Downward Spiral: by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      The major drawback of installing these lights into the pavement, at every intersection, aside from the cost of doing so, is that it reduces the number of candidates for each year's Darwin Awards.

      A question I would ponder is do people who cannot protect their own lives due to phone addiction, do they actually contribute anything of value to society?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:The Downward Spiral: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they're not paying enough attention to tell when the rest of the crowd at the light is moving, what makes you think they'll notice the red or green lights in the sidewalk?

      This is just to claim that the city did everything it could to protect the lives of idiots who walk out into traffic.

    3. Re:The Downward Spiral: by lkcl · · Score: 1

      i have had a picture in my head, for many years, ever since i first saw two teenagers walking one behind the other (separated by a distance of only 18 inches), *both* of them thumbs-down and heads-down on their phones. the picture is of DEvolution - it's an addition of two more pictures to the classic darwin evolution of ape to human... and it starts with a picture of an average naked human holding a smartphone, bent over, and ends with a cyborg on all fours again, antennae bristling out of its head.

      we're already at the first of those extra pictures....

    4. Re:The Downward Spiral: by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't pretty much all medicine and human progress in general subverting the course of evolution?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:The Downward Spiral: by dave420 · · Score: 1

      They probably contribute just as much as those people braying for people they don't like to be killed.

    6. Re:The Downward Spiral: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does shopping at a grocery store instead of hunting-gathering.

    7. Re:The Downward Spiral: by Dog-Cow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you protect stupid people from themselves, you hurt everyone else.

    8. Re:The Downward Spiral: by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. Likely ALL it does is increase costs and create a few extra jobs installing them.

      It is unlikely to solve any problem, and is most likely to be ignored, just like the existing signal lights for pedestrians are.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:The Downward Spiral: by Sique · · Score: 1, Interesting
      No, it isn't. Natural course of evolution is that the species survives which can have viable offspring. How the species gets to the point to have viable offspring is not regulated. If a species manages to work together to get more people through life, it will wins the evolution game against all other species which don't.

      Even if the single person would prove itself inept at the task at hand (crossing a road), it might have other interesting abilities that will help other people to overcome other obstacles in life. Every single specimen who survives and procreates, broadens the DNA pool, and adds more variability to it, and if there comes a massive change in the environment, species with larger DNA pools have better chances to find the DNA combination that helps the species to survive.

      At the KT boundary, famous for wiping out the dinosaurs, it was not exactly the dinosaurs, which got wiped out, it was in fact all animal life with body sizes of more than three feet at land and a little more in the oceans. If a species grows larger, it has less specimen, and thus less DNA variability to speedily find a new DNA combination fit for survival under new conditions. Large species only thrive if the conditions stay constant for a long time. At the KT boundary, all small dinosaurs survived, known as birds today. And all small, furry animals living in caves survived too, known as mammals. Small reptiles survived too, snakes and lizards and small turtles. Small vertebrae in the oceans survived, today's fishes and some water turtles. Mosasauridae died out.

      Whoever thinks that letting people die and thus "improving the DNA pool" is a good idea, does not really understand Darwinian evolution.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:The Downward Spiral: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly right. This is very similar to the paradox of tolerance. If we keep tolerating/protecting stupid, then stupid will be norm.

    11. Re:The Downward Spiral: by judoguy · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      "Younger people are most likely to risk their safety for a quick look at their Facebook profiles or WhatsApp messages, the survey found."

      Good, get 'em out of the gene pool in time!

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
  3. #zombielivesmatter by known_coward_69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    because the phone zombies want to live too

    1. Re:#zombielivesmatter by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I'm now waiting for the next horror movie where phone zombies walk out in front of people and get gooified, and come back as zombies to munch on the people that killed them.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:#zombielivesmatter by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Well, they can live INDOORS.

  4. Use an app instead by bretts · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At this point, why rely on visual cues outside of the phone at all? If they're looking at the phone and have location enabled, on-screen notifications could tell them when the light is green. This avoids them having to notice the periphery at all, which is less likely if they're into a particularly intense sexting session or game of Farmville.

    1. Re:Use an app instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      At this point, why rely on visual cues outside of the phone at all? If they're looking at the phone and have location enabled, on-screen notifications could tell them when the light is green. This avoids them having to notice the periphery at all, which is less likely if they're into a particularly intense sexting session or game of Farmville.

      We could always use more apps! Where's that app guy..........

    2. Re:Use an app instead by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The problem with this sort of conditioning is that it desensitizes the user even further to the world around him.

      When exceptions are made that do not penalize risky behavior, it encourages more risky behavior, perhaps in an environment without any protection.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Use an app instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook will make this app mandatory for all Occulus users. It'll be the only way to keep them alive.

    4. Re:Use an app instead by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I was just joking with my "use an app" post below, but apparently you are serious and were modded up. How would the phone know the light is green? You would have to connect the lighting control system to the Internet and send the data to the smartphones.

    5. Re:Use an app instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then we get the hacked app that tells them to stop in the middle of the intersection...

    6. Re:Use an app instead by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      1) Which light? The phone does not know which of the two road crossings you are standing next to you want to use.
      2) And why in the world would a person who does bother to look before they cross go out of their way to install and use an app to do the same? If they cared, they would not be crossing the street in this way to begin with.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re: Use an app instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI and the NSA will just add it to the monitoring system they have in place.

    8. Re:Use an app instead by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      At this point, why rely on visual cues outside of the phone at all? If they're looking at the phone and have location enabled, on-screen notifications could tell them when the light is green. This avoids them having to notice the periphery at all, which is less likely if they're into a particularly intense sexting session or game of Farmville.

      Maybe because network / cpu delay would = a dead user ?

      I sure as hell wouldn't take the risk of writing / publishing / backing such an app.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    9. Re:Use an app instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phone does not know which of the two road crossings you are standing next to you want to use.

      Yes, it does. It has a compass, and besides, it knows where you're going.

      And why in the world would a person who does bother to look before they cross go out of their way to install and use an app

      Because it allows them to look at the phone more and not be constantly distracted by the real world.

    10. Re:Use an app instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets get rid of safety belts then?

    11. Re:Use an app instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, simple app, it flashes on the screen, "Look up or you might die" as you approach an intersection with a do not walk flashing or whatever danger.

  5. Stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let Darwinism take its course.

    1. Re:Stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is Darwinism.

      One group has convinced another group to spend a ton of money to keep them safe. It's not quite as impressive as parasitic fungus, but pretty damn close.

      The only consolation is that eventually the will have to live in the world they created after the caretakers are gone. And it's going to be ugly.

    2. Re:Stupid idea by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 1

      Let Darwinism take its course.

      So many people making comments like this. So many sociopaths.

      Even if the kernel of your thought was valid, you're missing what is obvious to others. What about the "smart" person driving the car that hits the inattentive pedestrian? Their guilt and sorrow is trivial enough to you that taking steps to prevent it isn't worth a thought? What about the parents of the inattentive pedestrian, who tried to instill sensibility in their child but... rebellious teens still think they know everything? What about the boyfriend or girlfriend of he inattentive pedestrian? What about the paramedics who have to scrape up the liquified remains - and don't give me "job creation FTW!"

      What about the human cost?

      All this, assuming that your premise - you did one stupid thing so you deserve to die, and society shouldn't try to help prevent that - has any redeeming qualities to start with.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    3. Re:Stupid idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this, assuming that your premise - you did one stupid thing so you deserve to die, and society shouldn't try to help prevent that - has any redeeming qualities to start with.

      No, it's good fun. "Look where you're walking" is so basic that even religions didn't bother to code it as law. They figured that you understood. This isn't even on the level of providing clean needles to heroin addicts. At least it's easily understand that desperation and poverty can drive an addict to use a dirty needle for one last does. These mobile phone users can afford to look while walking. They're not charged by the glance...yet. Perhaps none of them so desperate that the desire for a new smartphone clouds their ability to walk.

    4. Re:Stupid idea by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 1

      What about the human cost?

      This is Slashdot. You just went over most posters' heads. At best, you'll just get blank stares.

  6. Not really by bretts · · Score: 1

    Animal-types go through a life cycle: start out dinosaurs, grow big and powerful, realize limitations, and end up as birds, lizards and snakes. Humans are just one face of the monkey animal-type, and we will end up being Bonobos who can write PHP code.

    1. Re:Not really by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      "...we will end up being Bonobos who can write PHP code"

      No, bonobos code in Visual Basic.

    2. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JavaScript will consume you all.

    3. Re:Not really by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Bonobos have way more sex than you do.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    4. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oblig SMBC

  7. Wrong solution by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    The correct solution is to make every traffic light IoT enabled and to make an app that tells people when the lights change. It would only cost about $400 million or so. What are the Germans thinking?

    ----This message brought to you by Cisco(tm)

    1. Re:Wrong solution by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      A new way to corrupt money out of tax payers???

    2. Re:Wrong solution by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Taxpayers would just waste it all on food and clothing and stuff anyway!

    3. Re:Wrong solution by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      That's not a counter argument to my reply but a fallacy, and you knew that... :-/

  8. Build A Bigger Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care if it works in the short term. In the long term this is the wrong solution. Education is the right solution.

    Make something idiot proof, and you just build a bigger idiot.

  9. Let nature work. by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    The fact that sidewalk streetlights have been implemented is a sure sign that not enough Darwin awards are being granted in the world today.

    Given the time and a proper amount of texting drivers, this problem will eliminate itself.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  10. Tax the phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, if people using the phones need this, they should be paying for the additional infrastructure themselves. Tax the sales of phones to pay for this so those who aren't idiots don't have to.

  11. Good for them by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nice to see a government that cares about keeping people safe rather than just taking their money and scolding them.

    1. Re:Good for them by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It's sure not helping the gene pool. To think that there were so many helping civilization and now some government has gone and messed that up.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Good for them by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it's the government job to protect every person from every single possible calamity which may befall that person rather than encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves.

      Essentially, you're admitting people are too stupid to take care of themselves so Big Brother has to do so.

      Are these the kind of people we want to perpetuate our species? Ones who can't think or act for themselves?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Good for them by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not just about saving the life of the person who is not paying attention. If they walk out into traffic other people may be hurt such as the driver of the car or passengers or the car may hit other people if the driver swerves. Then there is the psychological trauma, especially for the driver of the vehicle. But it's also for other passengers, the bystanders, and the emergency response crews. Plus you have the impact on the family and friends. Not just for the person who wasn't looking but for anyone else who was hurt physically and/or mentally. And finally you have any damage that needs to be repaired. It's not as important as the rest but it still needs to be taken into account.

      So no, it's not just the government trying to protect a single person from every possible calamity. In this case it's the government trying to protect a whole bunch of us from someone being an idiot.

    4. Re:Good for them by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      In this case it's the government trying to protect a whole bunch of us from someone being an idiot.

      Wouldn't letting people see the result of being more enamored with ones cell phone than their surroundings teach a larger group of people a valuable lesson? "This is what happens when you don't pay attention."

      In nature, when one animal encounters a bad situation, and it survives, it tells its friends and neighbors. Those in turn don't do what the first animal did. It's called learning. Those that fail to learn, die.

      Besides, with over 7 billion people on the planet, does it matter if a few are removed from the gene pool because of their own stupidity?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Good for them by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      Are these the kind of people we want to perpetuate our species? Ones who can't think or act for themselves?

      Thousands of years of religion haven't extinguished humanity, so don't be too concerned about cell phones.

    6. Re:Good for them by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1

      Because it's the government job to protect every person from every single possible calamity which may befall that person rather than encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves.

      Amen. This line of thinking of "but if it saves JUST ONE LIFE, it's all worth it!" is dangerous, expensive, and sadly growing more pervasive. Government trying to protect every person from every possible calamity has led to the USA PATRIOT act, the mass surveillance apparatus, 3 hour lines to get on an airplane, etc.

      People are going to die. It sucks, but we can't save everyone all the time.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    7. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has it ever occurred to you that the placement of traffic signals was never optimal?

    8. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, with over 7 billion people on the planet, does it matter if a few are removed from the gene pool because of their own stupidity?

      Just wait until one of those "7 billion people" is someone you know. So as long as the person is stupid they are expendable?

      People make stupid choices and often pay dearly for them, hopefully this does serve as a wake up call for others, but the utter lack of compassion for another human because they make one bad decision is despicable... how many times have you *almost* been in an accident, but somehow did not become "that person". I guess that means we all deserve to be removed from the gene pool. We all make stupid choices...thankfully we are all to often spared the worst case consequences of those momentary acts of foolishness. Where is compassion? Where is looking in the mirror and realizing that could be YOU? I wonder how many people will rejoice when you are dead because you were too "stupid" to deserve to live.

    9. Re:Good for them by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Blah, blah, blah. I make stupid decisions but not ones which endanger others.

      Why should I have compassion for people who refuse to listen to or use common sense? Pick anything you like: alcohol, drug use, smoking, texting while driving, talking on the phone while driving, taking selfies while driving, driving with your wrist slung over the top of the steering wheel, the list goes. In every single case there are mountains of science to back up the dangers of all those activities yet millions of people every day ignore the evidence.

      "George Burns smoked until he died in his 90s so I can smoke too!"

      "Marijuana is harmless so ignore the guy who blew his brains out after smoking a joint or the other guy who killed his wife after eating a Mary Jane edible."

      "Getting drunk is fun and there's nothing you can do to show otherwise!"

      "I drive one handed all the time and never have any problems. I'm a perfect driver."

      Compassion is reserved for those, who, through no fault of their own, come into unfortunate circumstances. The three year old who has leukemia deserves compassion. The kid with spina bifida deserves compassion. The guy who loses a leg to a shark deserves compassion. The people attacked by ISL or Boka Haram deserve compassion. The kids raped by Catholic priests deserve compassion.

      People who refuse to the use two pounds of grey matter rattling around in their skull and get injured or killed do not deserve compassion. They had the capacity to protect themselves but chose not to.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    10. Re:Good for them by Kohath · · Score: 0

      No, it's just some lights to warn people off the tracks.

      When did Slashdot commenters lose their humanity? Trains are for transportation, not some sort of bloodsport obstacle to entertain know-it-all douchebags.

    11. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying that you have NEVER looked down at your phone, radio knob, etc and been temporarily distracted? There is always the possibility when doing so that you could hit someone in the street.

    12. Re:Good for them by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You hit the nail on the head with that last word. Idiot. They are everywhere. The government can no more protect us from them than they can protect idiots from themselves. Make something idiot proof, evolution produces a greater idiot.

      But at what expense. The result of idiot proofing the world has very real economic impacts not just because the government is spending money but also due to the regulations they introduce and the effort and lost time caused by retrospective compliance.

      The only thing they achieve is spending money and training another generation of soft mindless idiots that the world will look after them.

    13. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so you've never once in your life done anything dangerous?

  12. Next up, stingless bees. by pla · · Score: 0

    Can we please give Darwin his fucking due, here? We don't need new traffic signals, we need idiots to exit the gene pool.

    Just make it legal to hit people texting while crossing the road, and the problem neatly goes away.

  13. Re:Washington Post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And so you link to the daily mail, please go kill yourself.

  14. Let them die by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

    Seriously, let them die. Don't spend money on them that could be going tgo helping people that aren't self-centered pricks. If you are unwilling to practice basic self-preservation then the world has a right to spit you out.

    1. Re:Let them die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for contributing to our society anyway you can.

    2. Re:Let them die by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that was meant as an ironic insult, and if so it is one that I don't understand.

    3. Re:Let them die by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The pedestrians are hit by trams and cars, both of which have human occupants. These lights are there to help them. Calm down.

    4. Re:Let them die by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      That is a fair point. I don't agree overall, but I think there is some merit in that argument.

  15. Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If a girl can't notice a train, they are not going to notice lights on the ground. If they can't even notice they are walking into a street... I bet they think all drivers will stop to let them pass.

    Ok, lets forget highway improvements, lets put all that money into putting lights into the sidewalks!

    1. Re:Ha by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      There is a salvage yard near me which specializes in semi trucks. Plenty of air horns and compressors to choose from....

      --
      C|N>K
  16. Desensization/Conditioning, or deferred authority? by bretts · · Score: 2

    That's a good point. It reminds me of the people who drive into lakes because their GPS tells them to turn there, or people treating information from business, government, NGOs and academia as infallible.

  17. We can do the same only cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here we would blame the user for not excercising caution and point at the safety disclaimer that came with the phone.

    In addition spending money safety and environmental protection is sure way to bancrupcy.

  18. I have a better idea by operagost · · Score: 1

    I have a better, and cheaper idea.

    Metal signs embedded in the pavement, in Day-Glo colors, that say LOOK UP YOU MORON. Or whatever they say in Germany.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:I have a better idea by gachunt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or, use Near Field Communication (NFC) to shut down their phone when they approach the curb.

      It could then be expanded to other places, say every movie theatre seat, and elevators.

    2. Re:I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would NFC just magically shut down a phone?

  19. Apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    App appers should use app apps for apping apps, NOT LUDDITE TRAFFIC LIGHTS!

    Apps!

    1. Re:Apps! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Got yer app right here...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  20. Size 11 1/2 Hush Puppy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    If you're walking down a busy street gazing down at your cell phone, I'd like to install my shoe up your ass.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Size 11 1/2 Hush Puppy by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Hello Mr. Forman.

  21. Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Halle (Saale) in Germany has this for 5 years now!

    http://www.mz-web.de/halle-saale/verkehr-grelles-licht-an-halles-gefaehrlichstem-ueberweg-7828682

  22. Boom to the Burglary Business!!! by Rogue974 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I grew up in a small framing community outside of Chicago and then went to college in Chicago. In one of my first few weeks there, a new friend who was from the city told me to stop looking down at the sidewalk. I asked why and he told me, that is how you get yourself mugged.

    We talked about it and I realized, being from a land of no sidewalks, I always scan the ground to make sure of my footing so I don't trip on uneven ground. In the city, sidewalks are much more level and predictable so people don't have to look down. Also pickpockets and muggers look for easy targets that can't identify them. My friend told me, he was always taught, look up and look at the people around you. If you make eye contact with a mugger, there is a chance you will be able to ID him so they look for another target.

    I am thinking, all these peoples looking down at their phone are an excellent target for being pick pocketed! I may have to change professions!

    1. Re:Boom to the Burglary Business!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We talked about it and I realized, being from a land of no sidewalks, I always scan the ground to make sure of my footing so I don't trip on uneven ground. In the city, sidewalks are much more level and predictable so people don't have to look down.

      Wow, what a nice city! Never a hole in the asphalt, or a missing tile/cobblestone anywhere! Still, if everybody looks up, the muggers can put a bottle on the ground for them to trip over. Or approach from behind . . .

    2. Re:Boom to the Burglary Business!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've lived my whole life in cities, but never in one that didn't have plenty of things to avoid stepping in or tripping over. I also hike a lot and there are plenty of hazards to avoid that you would miss if your attention was solely focused on the ground.

      Generally, you should be scanning your entire environment for hazards and anything else worth seeing.

      As far as criminals go, they can probably size up a good mark that much more easily if they can make eye contact.

    3. Re:Boom to the Burglary Business!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am thinking, all these peoples looking down at their phone are an excellent target for being pick pocketed! I may have to change professions!

      The world have changed since you moved to the city.
      You will get nothing but tangled charging cords if you pickpocket those people. They have their eyes firmly fixed on the only thing of value they are carrying with them.

    4. Re:Boom to the Burglary Business!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boon*

  23. Re:Washington Post? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    And so you link to the daily mail, please go kill yourself.

    Actually the Daily Mail gives us detail about many US stories that are for various reasons suppressed domestically. A recent example is that high school girl killed by bullies in the girls' bathroom in Wilmington DE:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

  24. Horrible Idea, Horrible Suggestions by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While it is obvious that this "solution" solves nothing and protects no one, the solutions put forward here are equally useless. No one who does not look up when crossing the road will install an app to make street crossings easier (and that is ignoring the technical hurdle of figuring out which road the user is crossing at the intersection, which seems like an unsolvable problem to me). And if they are engrossed in their phone, they are equally as likely to miss any indicators, on the ground, in the sky, or anywhere in-between.

    If you want to protect people from themselves, you need some sort of barrier or arm that physically blocks forward movement. Nothing else will register to someone who will miss a train barrelling towards them.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Horrible Idea, Horrible Suggestions by tsqr · · Score: 1

      If you want to protect people from themselves, you need some sort of barrier or arm that physically blocks forward movement. Nothing else will register to someone who will miss a train barrelling towards them.

      This is exactly what my city is doing - installing miniature crossing gates that block the sidewalks at grade crossings when a train is coming. Because pedestrians obviously can't see the traffic gates come down or hear the loud bells or see the flashing red lights.

    2. Re:Horrible Idea, Horrible Suggestions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this idea may have some additional benefits. Pedestrians (all of them) will no longer need to look across the street for the visual indication. It will be on the sidewalk in front of them. This could help people with some form of sight impairment (not total blindness, but legal blindness) be better able to judge these signals. This placement also helps make it clear when you can step off the curb. It may even have an impact of making more people stand behind said sidewalk lights so that the drivers do not need to worry as much about pedestrians falling into the street.

      It just seems more intuitive to look for a crossing marker (or no-crossing marker) near me than away from me.

    3. Re:Horrible Idea, Horrible Suggestions by Misagon · · Score: 1

      I once saved a texting woman from being run-over by a train at a railroad crossing.
      She walked right out on the tracks despite blinking lights and a very loud audible signal. She stopped first after a boom stopped her path -- the boom on the opposite side: She was standing right on the railroad track!
      I had to enter the tracks and physically drag her out of there. She protested at first, but I got her to safety. She said "thanks" but at no time did her eyes even leave her frikkin' phone!

      So, no, I don't think that even a physical barrier is going to be more effective than lights at "eye level". People just have to be taught some simple old-fashioned situational awareness. Maybe one way would be to publicly shame people who do wrong.
      Kids should be taught mobile do's and don'ts in schools.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  25. Re:Washington Post? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, that wasn't reported at all in the US. What a moron. It was on every fucking newscast both locally and nationally. Including Fox News and CNN.

  26. Need something for stop lines by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    How about something that smacks drivers in the head when they pull a FULL car length PAST the stop line before even thinking about stopping knowing full well that if approaching cars are just barely far enough away they'd blow right through the stop sign? News flash, people, you're not that important and neither is whatever you're racing to.

  27. Situational Awareness by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is just the latest example of the erosion of situational awareness: the ability to monitor what is happening in the immediate environment. Smartphones, earbuds, and texting all displace attention from the "here and now" by redirecting mental focus to a non-local environment. Note that this is beyond what happens with reading a book or listening to music without headphones because of the immersive/interactive nature of the experience.

    The loss of situational awareness makes people more susceptible to bad outcomes because the warning cues don't get through. Hence walking into traffic while looking at a screen. Obviously reading and walking can have the same result, but before the advent of current smartphones there were far fewer people who acted that irresponsibly. Also it was not social acceptable because most people realized the potential hazard. Now that smartphones are ubiquitous social norms have changed and people just don't care about what's going on around them.

    A more direct way to say it is that people now act very stupidly in public. They inhabit a personal bubble and blindly assume that reality will never intrude. There will never be enough padding in the world to protect them from a lack of attention. To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does".

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Situational Awareness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it's weird that walking while reading a book is thought of as stupid and rude, but somehow walking while using a smartphone is just normal.

    2. Re:Situational Awareness by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      This is just the latest example of the erosion of situational awareness: the ability to monitor what is happening in the immediate environment. Smartphones, earbuds, and texting all displace attention from the "here and now" by redirecting mental focus to a non-local environment. Note that this is beyond what happens with reading a book or listening to music without headphones because of the immersive/interactive nature of the experience.
      The loss of situational awareness makes people more susceptible to bad outcomes because the warning cues don't get through. Hence walking into traffic while looking at a screen. Obviously reading and walking can have the same result, but before the advent of current smartphones there were far fewer people who acted that irresponsibly. Also it was not social acceptable because most people realized the potential hazard. Now that smartphones are ubiquitous social norms have changed and people just don't care about what's going on around them.

      A more direct way to say it is that people now act very stupidly in public. They inhabit a personal bubble and blindly assume that reality will never intrude. There will never be enough padding in the world to protect them from a lack of attention. To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does".

      You know, it's a wonder why crime rates for pickpocketing haven't skyrocketed in the past few years. You'd think people who are completely distracted by their phones would make excellent marks, especially if they travel in a pack of like minded smartphone users.

      I mean, they're not paying attention to anything but their phone, so liberating them of everything other than their phones seems much easier (and you don't want a phone anyways - why steal a tracking device?). Especially the younger folks who are probably carrying pricey stuff like tablets and laptops, and from the older folks, wallets and purses.

      And because everyone else is doing the same, a "Stop thief!" shout would probably get them to look up and not see anything because they'd have to re-acquaint themselves with their surroundings, giving said thief a good 10-15 seconds to get away (and even more time if they want to go give chase).

      You'd think they'd be easy pickings everywhere.

      Of course, if I was wiring these lights in I might have the sidewalk lights stay red for several cycles so those who actually are paying attention can get around them and cross. I wonder how long they'll wait before they wonder if they missed a light.

    3. Re:Situational Awareness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They inhabit a personal bubble and blindly assume that reality will never intrude.

      Many people will push back and claim that they are plenty aware of reality when they are absorbed in their phone. Perhaps even more so since they are able to monitor reality beyond their immediate environment. After all, if you are only looking around you, you may realize too late that a tsunami is on its way to your location, whereas someone on their mobile device would have time to get to higher ground.

      Or some other BS.

      Of course, it all comes down to making sensible risk management decisions. Which is why it is a lost cause.

  28. Let me get this straight.. by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 2

    So using a cell phone while driving and causing an accident is clearly the driver's fault, but using a cell phone while walking and causing an accident is the city's fault?

    Double standard, much?

    1. Re:Let me get this straight.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you realize the difference here.

      If someone dies someone has to be held responsible. In the first case the blame can easily be put on the survivor, in the second case it is harder to do that.
      Since there is no-one to shift to problem to it ends up on the citys table.
      Installing traffic lights in the sidewalk is easier than cleaning up the mess.

  29. I see this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting hacked. After people begin to trust it, they will assume it's okay to walk. Some more miscreant will surely take advantage of this and send the lemmings over the cliff.

  30. The gene pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    march to the bottom continues.

  31. Why can't the camera be turned on? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Then you can "see through" the phone...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  32. Re:Washington Post? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    The linked story includes a number of details, including pictures taken at the scene, that we have not seen.

  33. Let the lawsuits begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before someone sues a municipality when their precious snowflake gets run down at an intersection that does not have these lights?

  34. barriers? by DavidMZ · · Score: 1

    If you want to protect people from themselves, you need some sort of barrier or arm that physically blocks forward movement. Nothing else will register to someone who will miss a train barrelling towards them.

    Trams (or what is called streetcar in the US, according to wikipedia) share the road with cars (but have the right of way). Barriers are not a practical solution.

    1. Re:barriers? by pj2541 · · Score: 1

      Great idea! When they hit that barrier and drop their phone, which then gets run over, it finally gets their attention. We just need to make sure that no 'insurance' policy will replace the phone for free in this case.

    2. Re:barriers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to protect people from themselves, you need some sort of barrier or arm that physically blocks forward movement. Nothing else will register to someone who will miss a train barrelling towards them.

      Trams (or what is called streetcar in the US, according to wikipedia) share the road with cars (but have the right of way). Barriers are not a practical solution.

      Then those people will die if they don't learn to look, serving as an example to others. What's the big deal?

    3. Re:barriers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trams (or what is called streetcar in the US, according to wikipedia) share the road with cars (but have the right of way). Barriers are not a practical solution.

      Barriers are in use for trams. The difference between a tram and a train is actually quite blurred. Some tram lines runs only on roads and acts sort of like busses while others are more railroad like with significant parts of the line running "outside of road traffic". When they aren't running together with cars, barriers and other railroad features can be used and to some extend they are.

      If you look at the picture in the article, you can see grass to the far left. Naturally it would be pavement if the trams were running together with cars. In other words there is no left/right traffic other than trams and the pavement is for the crossing pedestrians. It's an intersection I would classify as a railroad crossing. It's very likely that the traffic light is controlled by presence or absence of metal wheels on the rails, just like normal railroad crossings are controlled.

      Best example of a very railroad like tram I can think of offhand would be the Keihan tramline from Kyoto to Otsu in Japan video. Luckily somebody shortened the 20 minutes run down to like 2 minutes, but it does show the railroad and tram like locations of the line. It's even more blurred mix between tram and railroad because this particular line has a special permit to use vehicles up to 50 meters (30 meters being the normal max for trams).

      Points to whoever can give a clear definition of when it's a railroad and when it is a tramline. Keep in mind that Enoshima Electric Railway is a railroad, not a tramline.

  35. Another example of government... by acoustix · · Score: 1

    This is another example of governments rewarding/subsidizing bad behavior. It needs to stop.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  36. This is self-defeating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not let "nature" take its course...

    Texters/SmartPhoners walk into traffic and are injured or expire.

    The Darwin Award winners will continue to walk and text/talk/watch/chew gum.
    The smart ones, with genes we want to preserve, will adapt and survive.
    The population bomb will be defused.
    Unemployment will go down.
    Governments' expense will go down.
    Productivity will soar.
    "Things" will get better.

    But, no, the (Federal, State. Local) Governments will step in and try to outlaw "stupid".

    You can't cure stupid -- Ron White.

  37. Do the street too by iTrawl · · Score: 1

    1. This doesn't work under snow; but...
    2. Install these in roads too; because:
    3. They tell you to keep your eyes on the road, and then hang the traffic lights as high as possible, and maybe behind another traffic sign or maybe a tree's corona when it's not winter?

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
  38. Fixing a non-problem by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You'd rather have the financial impact of swathes of the population being killed in easily-preventable ways, just so you can feel superior to them?

    If they cannot be bothered to look up at a light it means they aren't watching for traffic either. Believe it or not there is more to watch for than just the light. If some idiot wants to wait another cycle because they can't be bothered to look up from their phone then I don't really see the problem. If they are dumb enough to walk out into traffic without actually looking up then they are candidates for a Darwin award. I don't wish anyone to be hurt but if they are because they were idiots I wouldn't feel bad for very long.

    Apologies to Ron White but you can't fix stupid.

  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Re:Washington Post? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Please, not the Daily Mail

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  41. A step in the right direction by TheAngryCat · · Score: 1

    Now if they would get the bicyclists off the sidewalk. I was almost run over by a dumbass bicyclist who was texting and riding on the sidewalk.

  42. Do The Lights Lead Them To Gas Chambers? by zenlessyank · · Score: 0

    Then it sounds like Germany found a good use for that old tech.

  43. I like it !! by ripvlan · · Score: 1

    For all those who say "let stupid solve itself" - I for one actually like this idea. Not for smartphone users. But for kids and other adults - large trucks and trains can block the crosswalk light. My son is learning to cross the road himself and currently knows to Stop at the Yellow mat on the sidewalk (we have these big yellow rubber mats installed in the sidewalk). The road itself has either White painted stripes or inlaid faux Brick crossings.

    So having a row of Red Lights on the ground like a little fence seems like a great safety idea. Like Railroad crossing gates. A fence at foot level.

    A better UI !!

  44. Never mind cost and security issues by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I've hacked on smartphones being anything but 'smart' for quite some time now, because of the cost of the phone, getting gouged for overpriced, underperforming, capped data plans from the highway robbers masquerading as wireless companies, and the fact that all smartphones have more holes in their security than a swisscheese, but now I have a whole new reason to never want a smartphone: I don't want to be associated with these mouth-breathers whose eyes are so thoroughly glued to their gods-be-damned phones, that they'd walk out into the middle of a busy street and get hit by a car, and some municipality therefore feels the need to install gods-be-damned traffic signals on the sidewalk to keep these idiots from killing themselves. Nope, no, hell no, don't want to be associated with them, at all, ever.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  45. Runway Lighting by asasdlfgnjl · · Score: 1

    Most advanced airports have a similar system called RWSL for planes. I wish this system would be adopted for all road markers and stopngolights by every city. That way when it snows out four lane roads donâ(TM)t turn it one lane getoutofmywayfests.

    1. Re:Runway Lighting by asasdlfgnjl · · Score: 1

      "donÃ(TM)t" Beta still isnâ(TM)t UTF-8 compliant? How dare you discriminate against my curly apostrophes.

    2. Re:Runway Lighting by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Most advanced airports have a similar system called RWSL for planes. I wish this system would be adopted for all road markers and stopngolights by every city. That way when it snows out four lane roads donÃ(TM)t turn it one lane getoutofmywayfests.

      At least for airplanes and airports, this is genuinely useful. Runway incursions are a huge safety risk and while you're supposed to contact ATC when entering a runway, as well as looking, it can be difficult since a runway can be a couple of miles long or longer, and it can be hard seeing other aircraft, cars, trucks and other vehicles who may be using the runway at the time, especially in weather. (The system is radar driven). And once installed, it also sounds off an alarm in the tower if someone accidentally enters when it's busy.

  46. You have that backward by s.petry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You want to protect people from their own behavior by using force and other people's money, and you claim someone else is trying to feel superior? Welcome to Orwellian speak..

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  47. commentsubjectsaredumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dependency on signals is already questionable. A traffic light tells you if you have legal entitlement to right of way, and other traffic is obliged to stop. Paper walls are great, but I'd be an idiot to make them my sole confirmation of whether a two-ton mass is still flying towards my delicate flesh.

    Fortunately *I* have ocular organs that can instantly analyze whether that's the case, and report it on neural channels that have historically delivered 100% accuracy on whether large masses are hurtling. No dependencies for me, thanks.

    You blind types will still have to rely on it, sorry.

  48. And in other news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The creators of the popular competition, the Darwin Awards, is suing the city of Augsburg.

  49. hand holding of mindless phonbies... by cmorgan503 · · Score: 1
    Why bother with the traffic lights on sidewalks? I see 2 ways to resolve this issue.
    • Google and Apple should be taking the initiative (protect their advertising customers! a dead user isn't any good for our revenue stream!) by making the display go blank when the gyroscope senses walking motion.
    • Track crossing should come with electrified gates that gets powered when trains are about to cross. Imagine the hilarity of people dropping their 'preciousness' touching these gates!
  50. Better idea... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Change the laws so that drivers are not liable if they hit a pedestrian when it's the drivers lawful right of way.

  51. Ever have a bad day? by randomlygeneratename · · Score: 1

    Sometimes a person just has a bad day... maybe their S.O. starts a heated argument via g-chat. Then they get distracted, make a mistake, and with the worst timing, the city bus that doesn't give a damn plows on through. But the prevailing wisdom on /. is that hey, they're dumb and deserved it, right?

    1. Re:Ever have a bad day? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      These stupid people won't pay attention to the lights in the sidewalk either, so they will get weeded out anyway. You can't help stupid; one of the failings of our society is trying to divorce stupid people from the consequences of their stupid actions.

    2. Re:Ever have a bad day? by PPH · · Score: 2

      maybe their S.O. starts a heated argument via g-chat.

      That's when my phone battery dies.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  52. Do these even work? by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    I'm confused as to how this works. We are assuming that people that can't look down to see TRAIN TRACKS will actually notice the lights on the ground right next to the TRAIN TRACKS. I use to think Germans and European leaders were a little smarter than us here in the US, but apparently they have plenty of stupid people in charge, too.

  53. London Underground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every day, the muppets on their way to work or wherever. It's got worse since some clever dick decided it would be a good idea to install Wi-Fi. On the escalators, through the tunnels, on the platforms, they rarely look up to see where they're going. Auto-pilots I think. No sense. However, it allows a new game to be played. It's called my right of way. If you don't see me coming, I'm not moving for you. In fact, I'll speed up. Don't get me wrong, I'll still apologise when you drop your phone. It's only polite to do so, and very British.

  54. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #phonezombieslivesmatter

  55. Seeing-Eye Dogs by mentil · · Score: 1

    These light strips should also be visible to seeing-eye dogs, who could be trained to stop their owner when turned on. Since dogs are colorblind, that's assuming they just turn off and on, not red and green.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  56. Well, it does have its uses by Etcetera · · Score: 1

    Although I'd normally snark this one to death, having flashing LEDs at a crossing for pedestrian control *as well as* for vehicle control isn't a bad idea, really. We have a couple of those here in San Diego on notoriously unsafe crossings, or areas where cars have a tendency to fail to notice the normal crosswalk signaling but they don't want to put a full traffic light in.

    Those with failing eyesight or using guide-dogs might also benefit from this.

    It's a horrible thing to *have* to put in, but as probably just one arrow in the quiver of options for making some specific intersection safer it's fine by me.

  57. Tickets by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    Shouldn't they be handing out tickets and fines to pedestrians that are using public streets while distracted?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  58. Sidewalk Traffic Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great for the auto drivers that have swerved onto the sidewalks while surfing the web on their phones.

  59. Wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF!

  60. smart phone traffic lights..??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like London, England where they put bumper cushions on street lamps and poles so people wouldn't hurt themselves when they walked into the object while mesmerized by their DUMB phones. God give your head a shake bureaucrats. You're spending public funds to rectify a problem to protect people from hurting themselves. Can't people take responsibility for themselves any more.?

    I think it's about time the telecom corp.'s took some responsibility for this? My heaqrt and prayers go out to the parents of that poor 15 year old who was killed by a tram while looking at her phone. She wouldn't be glued to her phone if the "enticing" ads put on TV and wherever didn't make her feel like she wasn't keeping up with the rest of the phone addicts. She is a product of our media ad blitz on our kids!