Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dutch Town Pilots Lightlines To Help Distracted Smartphone Users Cross the Road (autoexpress.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on from the humanity's-last-hope dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A Dutch municipality has introduced pedestrian traffic lights specifically designed to help smartphone users avoid stepping into traffic by displaying a colorful strip of light on the pavement. Built by Dutch firm HIG Traffic Systems, the new +LightLine light comes with a LED strip that illuminates the pavement with a horizontal strip before the road crossing. Smartphone users looking at their phone will see the color of the strip beneath their feet before stepping out into the road.

115 comments

  1. You know.. by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All these kludges do is breed better idiots. Time to let darwin clean house a bit.

    1. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At least these assholes won't be damaging as many cars with their stupid meatbags. That's the only benefit I see out of this.

    2. Re:You know.. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Just cut the cell service and let society heal.

    3. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But won't someone PLEASE think of the distracted smartphone users???!?!?!

    4. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still going to cross when a left-turning car is approaching without thinking. Unless they can detect that somehow, or invent a better driver.

    5. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMFTFY... As no one cares about "users" ....

      But won't someone PLEASE think of the distracted smartphone children???!?!?!

    6. Re:You know.. by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      All these kludges do is breed better idiots. Time to let darwin clean house a bit.

      That may still happen. I'm not sure about the Netherlands, but in a lot of places in the United States it's actually dangerous to cross a street without looking even if the pedestrian traffic light is lit. In most cases the light exists on corners, and many states allow drivers to turn right if oncoming traffic is clear. Most of the time, the oncoming traffic that could hit you is on the left. So if you're looking left and start moving your car before looking to the right, you could easily hit someone in either the crosswalk on your current street or the crosswalk on the street you're turning on to if you're not careful.

      It's a good idea in the United States (and, I suspect, in many countries) to check for careless drivers even if the crosswalk sign says you can cross the street. You have the right of way, but it sure is easier to curse out a stupid/careless driver from the sidewalk than from the pavement after they've hit you.

    7. Re:You know.. by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now they just need to do the same for drivers.... move the traffic lights and road signs so that they can be seen while still looking down at your phone...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Don't f-ck with natural selection. It works to improve the species as a whole.

      Does anyone where they're rolling those LED strips out have some duct tape and a little spare time?

    9. Re:You know.. by chefmonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you've been to Holland, you'll notice that the drivers are extremely careful -- it would be hard to get hit by a car. I'm certain these light-lines are to keep pedestrians from getting run over by bicycles. In Holland, I think bikes actually earn points, Deathrace-2000-style, for aiming at pedestrians.

    10. Re:You know.. by Imrik · · Score: 1

      At least the right turns will be at low speed, the ones that scare me are the people turning left that only look at oncoming traffic and not at the crosswalk.

    11. Re:You know.. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is a perfect example of the difference between Europe and America. Europe swims with the flow of the universe, while America swims against it. Europe moves forward in time, America moves backwards..

    12. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be fine with that as long as the people driving weren't liable for retards crossing roads out of nowhere.

    13. Re:You know.. by Stonent1 · · Score: 0

      There are two kinds of country in this world. Those that use the metric system and those who have put men on the moon.

    14. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean USED to put men on the moon.

    15. Re:You know.. by liquidsin · · Score: 2

      Surely bringing up events from forty-five years ago will counter his point about being stuck in the past.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    16. Re: You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well we did vote for brexit...

      I'm not convinced that something like this should be admired. More so a problem with culture where getting the latest work email or gossip from facetwitgramapp is more important that safety.

    17. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you know that GERMAN scientists managed your space program.

    18. Re:You know.. by Evtim · · Score: 1

      List of road participants in the Netherlands [in decreasing order of danger]

      - small motors [they are allowed to use the bike lanes], the so called "broomers" - especially kids [16-17yrs] hired for delivery jobs [uber, kangoroo, pizza, post] - these youngsters often do [on the bicycle lane] higher speed than it is allowed on the car road next by....crazy!
      - old folk in cars [sorry, it is true; they are driving slow, but also have quite a problem with observing the traffic and reaction times]
      - bicycles
      - pedestrians
      - cars in general
      - Train, taxi, tram etc. [professionals]

      However, all the above is a moot point in every big city. In Amsterdam the rule is only this: EVERYONE has the advantage....somehow this does not result in a bloody carnage, which always surprises visitors of the city....but if it was up to me I would ban the broomers [the noise is horrible as well].

    19. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They still do 15 to 20mph. Some of the major traffic intersections in Canada were completely insane. The button for the traffic lights was in the pedestrian island beyond the right turn lane.

    20. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is a melting pot from everywhere. If Germany was so good, why didn't the scientists stay there and build a rocket there. Probably because they didn't have the money to put into space exploration as they were still paying for war crimes, and rebuilding their country.

    21. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if only they would do something about the irresponsible assholes who use their phones while driving.

    22. Re:You know.. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Yep. I've been tempted to jump on their hoods to absorb the impact rather than dodge them - in part because trying to dodge them means you're more likely to end up under their wheels. Give them a good dent. With enough winter clothing, should come out of it more or less okay.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    23. Re:You know.. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      America is a melting pot from everywhere. If Germany was so good, why didn't the scientists stay there and build a rocket there. Probably because they didn't have the money to put into space exploration as they were still paying for war crimes, and rebuilding their country.

      They DID build a rocket there. Many. If it hadn't been for material shortages, they would have been able to not just produce more, but also ballistic missile subs. Imagine a few of those going up the St. Lawrence seaway to keep company with the U-boats that were already there.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    24. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to the US, driving while on the phone is rare in the Netherlands. Not unheard of, but the fines are pretty steep (EUR 180, IIRC)

    25. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fines are steep in the US, too. Behavior isn't changed by laws and the size of fines, but by enforcement. Nothing but speeding is enforced in the US. (Hell, one of the leading causes of on-duty police deaths in the US is single vehicle collisions [read: the cop drives into something, usually while distracted with the phone or computer].)

    26. Re:You know.. by NoSalt · · Score: 1

      Now they just need to do the same for drivers.... move the traffic lights and road signs so that they can be seen while still looking down at your phone...

      This, actually, isn't a bad idea. Have a mandatory smartphone app on every phone sold. Whenever a driver is approaching an intersection, have the app, which is always running in the background, alert the driver about the intersection. I think this would be awesome.

    27. Re:You know.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you've been to Holland, you'll notice that the drivers are extremely careful -- it would be hard to get hit by a car.

      There's a reason for this. Hitting either a pedestrian or a cyclist with a car automatically qualifies you as getting properly screwed. You are at fault. No ifs or buts, you are at fault. If there were really mitigating circumstances you can go through a lengthy legal process to convince the court that yes the person was horribly drunk, suicidal, and faster than Usain Bolt in jumping out from a blind corner, and you were only doing 1km per hour and he ran into your car not the other way around, and his leg was broken before you even got there, but even then it may not turn out favourably for you.

      If the person who was hit is under 14, you're at fault, end-of. Courts won't even hear your case.

      It breeds a very different style of driver.

      You don't have to worry walking on roads in Holland. Two things are far more likely to kill you: Salmonella (Google: filet americain, which is delicious may I add), and crossing a bicycle path.

    28. Re:You know.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and Russia was the first to reach space, which was a much more important accomplishment because it actually lead to real life advances, like satellites. Going to the moon was a complete waste because nothing practical ever came from it.

    29. Re:You know.. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Google: filet americain, which is delicious may I add

      Who would want to eat filleted american? We are so fatty.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re:You know.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In your defence if there's one thing I have learnt is that the fatty meat is the most delicious and it's best cooked with fat on :-)

  2. Put the phone away and PAY ATTENTION! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Need I say more?

    1. Re:Put the phone away and PAY ATTENTION! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      It used to be walking and chewing gum, now it's walking and texting.

    2. Re:Put the phone away and PAY ATTENTION! by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my vision stops working every time I chew gum, it's a nuisance but it doesn't stop me.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  3. Let them geet run over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll thin out the population and remove some of the more ignorant.

  4. done with user friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ok, fuck it, I am done with user friendly. This is too far. Some people deserve to be hit by cars. Instead of this, let's revise traffic laws so that cars that mow down people using smartphones aren't liable for anything. Maybe we can pay drivers who mow down smartphone users a bounty.

    1. Re:done with user friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A strip of green LEDs is very affordable...

    2. Re:done with user friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to open your wallet and pay for them then

    3. Re:done with user friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, in the sense that you can buy oodles of them and they're easy to wire in.

      I'm afraid of the cost you can't measure in dollars: the dumbing down of the population.

    4. Re:done with user friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm advocating sticking down strips of green all the time LEDs, over the government installed color changing ones.

    5. Re:done with user friendly by Calydor · · Score: 2

      Not to mention the lawsuits when someone gets hit by a car because the light strip was malfunctioning. You know, instead of stopping to look BOTH WAYS before crossing the street like we were taught when we were three years old.

      Seriously, that is what smartphones do: They make adults dumber than a three year old kid. This just proves it.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    6. Re:done with user friendly by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      THIS!!!

      Seriously, taking responsibility and putting it elsewhere only breeds more irresponsibility.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:done with user friendly by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Ok, fuck it, I am done with user friendly. This is too far. Some people deserve to be hit by cars. Instead of this, let's revise traffic laws so that cars that mow down people using smartphones aren't liable for anything. Maybe we can pay drivers who mow down smartphone users a bounty.

      When did the streets *start* being user friendly to pedestrians? Pedestrians are routed blocks out of their way to get to a destination that's just across the street, when they get there they have to stop and hit the "pedestrian beg button" to beg for permission to cross the street (even if the light is already green for cars when they get there, they sitll have to sit through an entire light cycle), and then when they finally get the pedestrian walk signal, cars get a green at the same time, so the pedestrians still need to watch for and dodge cars.

      Which part of that is "user friendly" to any users but drivers?

    8. Re:done with user friendly by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 0

      Weighted crowbars with hooks are inexpensive, and they rip the daylights out of a modern 'collision safe' car. Every pedestrian should carry a 'walking stick' that doubles as one.

    9. Re:done with user friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm advocating sticking down strips of green all the time LEDs, over the government installed color changing ones.

      The kind of people who might take up on your advocacy are already too busy lacing the foods on supermarket shelves with rat poison. OTOH, if you personally want to commit these murders, the Dutch prison system is probably one of the more comfortable ones in the world.

    10. Re:done with user friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did the streets *start* being user friendly to pedestrians?

      When they were built in the Netherlands, instead of in the USA.

    11. Re:done with user friendly by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Until you factor in providing it with power and embedding it in pavement. Then multiply it by the total number of crosswalks, the "efficiency" of public sector road work, and the red tape that ties it all together.

    12. Re:done with user friendly by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It won't work. People with their noses burried in their phones already walk over the big yellow safety line onto the subway tracks (or walk into the space between subway cars and get themselves killed).

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    13. Re:done with user friendly by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oh you must be American. You should come visit the Netherlands at some point before you make any comment about how unfriendly roads are to pedestrians or cyclists. Typically it's a case of cars have endless restrictions but pedestrians and cyclists are gods amongst metal head plebs.

      Pedestrians never need to watch for cars since cars are always liable for hitting a pedestrian, ESPECIALLY when they have a green light. Oh that was wrong. I should have said "regardless if" instead. ... and they know it too which turns every day into a game of dodge the pedestrian.

      And my personal favourite, when it rains (all the time) the traffic light cycles change to prioritise pedestrians and cyclist crossings, and entire cities grind to a halt. Followed by a close second place that there's a give-way sign on the EXIT of a roundabout, so that the roundabout, a construct built to promote traffic flow at an intersection, grinds to a halt if a pedestrian or cyclist is on one of the side paths.

      If I get in a car right now and drive to my local shops (2km away), my girlfriend will beat me there with her bicycle and have time to claim the pokemon gym at the local pool on the way.

  5. are you fucking kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why are we continuing to enable these odes to Darwinism-in-action?

  6. Instead of spending tax money by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Why not use small fines and bring some revenue into the local government?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Instead of spending tax money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fines are unpopular.

      Having more startups (even gov funded ones) and a more techy population (texting while walking) is a ``good thing'' (more popular with voters than fines).

    2. Re:Instead of spending tax money by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Then I guess we go with raising taxes, since fines are so unpopular.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Instead of spending tax money by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why not use small fines and bring some revenue into the local government?

      Because fines have been shown in general not to make even the slightest difference.
      Because the Dutch wouldn't dare fine someone for walking or cycling. That is something only reserved for cars. They are trying to promote the removal of cars from roads and that makes pedestrians and cyclists untouchables.

    4. Re:Instead of spending tax money by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Because measures like this save money. It costs money to scrape them off the road and treat them. It costs money when traffic is snared up because of a collision. It also costs when public transport is delayed because of someone getting mashed on the road. Sure, it denies the Dutch the chance to gloat at someone being hurt, but it's safer and cheaper for everyone.

    5. Re:Instead of spending tax money by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      You make money if you fine them.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  7. Isn't it better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to let nature naturally select them?

    1. Re:Isn't it better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nature sometimes needs a little help.

      A few batteries and strips of green LEDs will fix these intersections right up. Stick them over the nanny installed ones.

  8. Fake News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this another fake news story like the one last year about China putting in special slow lanes on sidewalks for these idiots? Slashdot fell for it that time as well.

  9. Let darwinism help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are lowering the bar. We should darwinism simply kick in.

    1. Re:Let darwinism help by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      We are lowering the bar. We should darwinism simply kick in.

      We did. The result was Trump. It's a work in progress, but with him in charge, there's the potential to get rid of ALL those pesky humans.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  10. Wrong approach by PoopMonkey · · Score: 1

    What they should've done is pass a law so that drivers can't be held legally responsible or sued for injuries distracted smartphone users suffer.

  11. Overkill to going to fix this? by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Smartphone users looking at their phone will see the colour of the strip beneath their feet before stepping out into the road.

    If the two separate eye-level light indicators and the survival instinct you've been genetically encoded with don't grab your attention, it seems unlikely a third, foot level light strip will do it.

    Let's be honest: You can be distracted merely thinking about something else when you should be paying attention. Hell, a driver who is paying attention might very well prevent a pedestrian impact... should we now then beam "Warning! Pedestrian!" into the vehicle's stereo speakers?

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

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Overkill to going to fix this? by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Hell, a driver who is paying attention might very well prevent a pedestrian impact... should we now then beam "Warning! Pedestrian!" into the vehicle's stereo speakers?

      Well, yes. Better still let's make it so the car's computer will automatically brake safely if there's any obstruction in front of it ("safe" meaning that braking now won't cause you to be rear-ended). This is a completely earnest reply, and indeed it seems to be where the car industry is heading.

    2. Re:Overkill to going to fix this? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      You are making a big assumption that the driver is paying attention. When crossing streets, at the crosswalk and with the light, I still check to see if it's safe. There's about once a month that I have to prevent myself from starting or else I would be hit. It's actually worse in the suburbs because people expect everyone to be driving. Pedestrians just aren't expected out in the suburbs at a crossing so drivers that have been waiting for the light to change in order to make a right turn (it being too busy to make it when the light was red) don't even bother to look for people before pressing on the gas.

      I'm not saying that it's only the drivers fault. There are plenty of idiots on both sides. (I once saw a person cross the street when everyone else, cars included, had stopped for a fire truck entering the intersection from the opposite side. Let's just say that fire trucks have very, very good brakes.)

    3. Re:Overkill to going to fix this? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      You are making a big assumption that the driver is paying attention.

      I make no such assumption. What I have noticed, however, is whether you're speaking of a two vehicle collision or a vehicle/pedestrian collision, is that if one of the parties is paying attention it greatly reduces the likelihood of an accident.

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

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:Overkill to going to fix this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it seems unlikely a third, foot level light strip will do it.

      it would if was a little further back from the street, about another 5-6 feet, and it also raised up 12 or so inches when it turned red.

    5. Re:Overkill to going to fix this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yes. Better still let's make it so the car's computer will automatically brake safely if there's any obstruction in front of it ("safe" meaning that braking now won't cause you to be rear-ended).

      This is a truly stupid idea, but I'm sure carjackers would love it if all they had to do was step in front of their victims car to get it to automatically stop for them.

      If no one wants to just let nature take its course, it would be far better to put facial recognition cameras in the pavement and mail everyone crossing the street while using their cell phone a $1000 ticket. After three tickets the fine goes to $5000 and includes 90 days in jail.

    6. Re:Overkill to going to fix this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see it all now, hacked cars all across America, warning their half somnolent passenger/drivers of the imminent splatter about to feature on the windscreen, accompanied by the dulcet tones of: http://bitly.com/98K8eH

    7. Re:Overkill to going to fix this? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, give them a hammer and tell them they either destroy their phone or face a fine and destruction of their phone while they watch. Works great with illegal radar detectors.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Overkill to going to fix this? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      it seems unlikely a third, foot level light strip will do it.

      Two things outside your peripheral vision is the same thing as something inside it? Is this some new form of human brain theory you're studying?

    9. Re:Overkill to going to fix this? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      "Als je zo afgeleid oversteken van de weg niet schoppen in uw overlevingsinstinct, kan nog een visuele waarschuwing er niet toe."

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

      Ernest Hemingway

    10. Re:Overkill to going to fix this? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Repeating the same thing in Dutch won't make it true. Distraction does not imply complete loss of external input. It means you're not paying attention, and no one pays attention 100% of the time.

      Putting a big wide light directly in front of someone's face will have a very different effect than putting a small dot above eye level 10m away.

  12. And the purpose is.... ? by jtara · · Score: 1

    And those who have some basic cognizance of their environment will simply see the LEDs under their feet.

    But this will be a great boost to the longevity of those who walk around on public streets wearing VR goggles.

  13. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put your fucking phone down when crossing a street. Probably fucking best to do it anytime you are walking anywhere.

    What's next, new gizmos to prevent distracted pedestrians from being easy targets for theft or from walking into things?

  14. Cheaper than this... by Hulfs · · Score: 3, Funny

    At least it's probably cheaper than the 120K EUR squirrel bridge near The Hague and will get used more than 5 times:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    1. Re:Cheaper than this... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Ironically I have yet to see a squirrel in Holland. I have seen squirrels in every bordering country ... just not in the Netherlands.

  15. Why did the smartphone user cross the road? by naris · · Score: 1

    Because the chicken didn't

  16. You're Making It Worse by Baby+Duck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This teaches the wrong behavior and makes them less prepared for roads without lightlines or malfunctioning lightlines.

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    1. Re:You're Making It Worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot, Please let this be the first example of a +6 comment. This one sentence sums up EXACTLY why this is bad and should not be done with ZERO BS padding. Good example of a PERFECT comment on the issue.

    2. Re: You're Making It Worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont think its about creating habits its just catering and if its not there im sure they will look.

  17. Oblig by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    Obligatory

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory

      OMG it is the most prophetic science fiction movie ever made!

  18. Trying to keep idiots alive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how much hand holding can you do to protect idiots?

    1. Re:Trying to keep idiots alive by PPH · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I suppose we could ask Reince Priebus.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Darwin is not pleased by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, at what point do we finally just let stupid people kill themselves?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Darwin is not pleased by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      That's all well and good, but won't you think of the poor people that hit these jerks?

      Bam, you just killed someone's loved one.

      I don't know about you, but despite the fault determination I would still be wracked with guilt and remorse.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:Darwin is not pleased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darwin already died a while back, he's neither pleased nor displeased. And has it never occurred to you that the tendency to help and facilitate each other, including strangers, is the result of evolution? We behave like that because it's a succesful survival strategy for our species.

      It is not difficult to understand. If enough individuals are inclined to (sometimes) help others survive, the likelyhood increases that that kind of help is available when it is needed by any individual. This increases everyone's chance to survive and pass their genes on. The term "survival of the fittest", which was not intruduced by Darwin himself, suggests that only competition between individuals is a factor. This is wrong, behaviour that benefits every member of a species is pretty likely to be beneficial to the species as a whole.

  20. Or by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    o Why did the smartphone user cross the road?

    o Wasn't paying attention, didn't notice the chicken waiting for traffic to clear the crosswalk

    Good news, though... free fried pedestrian at my place tonight!

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  21. There's already an app for this by Drunkulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Check out iLook for road crossing assistance. The basic version performs an effective real-time check for oncoming traffic. iLook Pro looks both ways.

    1. Re:There's already an app for this by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 2

      I sooooo hope this is humor, but I'm too afraid to check the store because I don't think I could live with the disappointment.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  22. Better idea by nwaack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've got a better idea. Rather than warning strips, they should install cameras to take pictures of the idiots that are too addicted to their phones to obey traffic signals. Then they should post those pictures on the internet so we can publicly shame them. After all, most phone addicts only care about one thing more than their phone, and that's how others feel about their online persona.

    1. Re:Better idea by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Hardly. Most phone addicts don't give a shit about their online persona. What they care about is everyone else's. Public shaming won't do anything to stop this.

  23. Great - more lit-up visual clutter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you want to bet these LED strips will be made with only the simplest rectifier circuits like cheap Christmas lights and pulse at 50 Hz?

    1. Re:Great - more lit-up visual clutter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you want to bet these LED strips will be made with only the simplest rectifier circuits like cheap Christmas lights and pulse at 50 Hz?

      $0.00

      This is the Netherlands we are talking about. These will be Philips brand, best available tech ... and you can bet your house on that.

  24. No Longer Useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now what use case are the makers of transparent phones supposed to advertise for?

  25. Also, Glowing Blue Sidewalks by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    As Described in this article Eindhoven, Netherlands has solar powered blue and green glowing bike paths. No surprise, as Philips was headquartered here for years and the town grew-up in the electric lighting industry.

  26. Hahaha I sure do hate stupid people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't stupid people stupid! They won't even look up from their phones when oncoming traffic is approaching! I sure am glad I'm not a stupid person (you can tell I'm not a stupid person by how fiercely I'm deriding this topic). They should just replace these lightlines with power lines, and electrocute anyone who comes within 20ft of a smartphone instead, and then the deceased's extended family should be shamed on national television for being related to such a stupid person! My unreasonably-aggressive hatred towards smartphones should really help hammer home that I am NOT a stupid person, since stupid people like smartphones and if I hate smartphones that means I can't be a stupid person.

    In all seriousness though, I don't see how this is anything other than a good thing. As someone who doesn't have the luxury of owning a car I have to walk everywhere, which means I can end up crossing as many as 20, 30 maybe even 50 roads in a day depending on how busy I am, most of the time I'm paying attention, but there are times when I'm more focused on making sure I haven't left my wallet behind, or I have an important client texting me and I need to retrieve my phone from my pocket, or I'm looking down as I'm cleaning dust from my glasses.

    Even if this benefits those dang stupid people and their dang phones most of all, I think I'd be happy with it if it means potentially preventing me from doing something we are ALL prone to doing: occasionally screwing up.

    1. Re:Hahaha I sure do hate stupid people! by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      Even if this benefits those dang stupid people and their dang phones most of all, I think I'd be happy with it if it means potentially preventing me from doing something we are ALL prone to doing: occasionally screwing up.

      Jesus fuck, THANK YOU. I walk to work every day, and I cross a busy dual carriageway, and at least 10-15 roads. I pay attention, but there will be the odd time when a song comes on my phone or a text comes through and I'll be momentarily distracted enough that I miss a crossing that this would stop me doing.

      If occasionally losing 100% focus on what you're doing is "stupid", there's not a clever person on this earth.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    2. Re:Hahaha I sure do hate stupid people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you have to immediately look at your phone when crossing the street? Just get to the other side before you check the text.

      This isn't a matter of focus, it's common goddamn sense.

  27. demand and supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is what it is might as well make it safer for people and move with the trends and times.

  28. it won't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone staring at her screen isn't going to see the lights in front of her just as much as she isn't going to see the people and/or cars in front of her

  29. Please remind me... by hackel · · Score: 1

    Why do we want to save these people, again? I guess they could potentially cause a lot of damage to vehicles that it would be nice to avoid. Their elimination from society very well may be worth the cost, however.

  30. Self-walking pedestrians by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

    I sooooo hope this is humor ...

    It is, but the basic idea is sound ...

    What is needed is for cars to be tracked at all times (as self-driving cars will be anyway) and then using either data from the centralised tracking server or via proximity to the phone (or both), the smartphone will direct people where, when and how to cross the road safely. I think too that we need to fine anyone attempting to cross a road using such an underdeveloped and untrustworthy bio-tech such as "eyes," ... some people are just so stupid! Unless, of course, said eyes were augmented via connected glasses ...

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  31. huh??!!?? by aduxorth · · Score: 1

    Whatever happened to the saying
    Look where you walk.

  32. Dox them all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go find and study a decent defensive driving guide (or perhaps a state driving exam), then take a good hard look at how the vast majority of people [who operate cars, trucks, buses or whatever] actually drive, then tell us how substandard those distracted pedestrians really are...

  33. How about those that bump into people? by hughbar · · Score: 2

    Not joking. I live in London, we've tried a couple of experiments by just stopping, as one does, and morons on mobiles (may I suggest the hashtag #moronsonmobiles) just bump into you. A few apologise, most do not. So, let's get rid of the lot. Nothing that you need to do on your phone is that important, even looking at pictures of cats.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
    1. Re:How about those that bump into people? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Not joking. I live in London, we've tried a couple of experiments by just stopping, as one does, and morons on mobiles (may I suggest the hashtag #moronsonmobiles) just bump into you. A few apologise, most do not. So, let's get rid of the lot. Nothing that you need to do on your phone is that important, even looking at pictures of cats.

      I tend to use the acronym MOP (morons On Phones) for drivers too busy with their head buried in their phones on the road.

      MOP's in cars is much less of a problem in England than they were in Australia. Perth police did a weekend sting on phones whilst driving and issued 700 files in 48 hours... and it's not like they didn't advertise the fact this sting was happening for at least a week beforehand.

      However back to London, there was a report on ITV a few months back about a spate of "brazen" (ITVs word, not mine) phone thefts in London. I took one look at the CCTV footage they broadcast and immediately said "You're an idiot for walking down a busy street with your head buried in your phone". Theives were snatching phones out of hands with remarkable ease because people had no idea what was going on around them, no situational awareness what so ever.

      Being a non-native to the UK, I'm often using my phone for waking directions in an unfamiliar place. However I dont walk around with my head buried in it because that would just be stupid. Basic rules of politeness and self preservation say that I should move to a wall, out of the way of others before looking at maps, messages or cat videos.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  34. First world problems... by codeButcher · · Score: 1

    I for one, am in favour of putting up a length of string at ankle height - also called a tripwire - at said crossings. Much cheaper, lower tech and thus less finicky, and will also teach people to pay attention to their surroundings.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  35. Slashdot now antigeek? by mattr · · Score: 1

    Pretty amazing the number of highly scored posts promoting autodarwination of own species. In other words voting *against* safety measures for an acknowledged safety issue. Personally I think a flashing fullscreen big red icon that displays in response to broadcast danger signals would be better but seriously traffic accidents from people ultrafocused on data has got to be one of the bigger threats to readers. Personally I have been in some near misses with bikes
      due to reading slashdot while walking.

    1. Re:Slashdot now antigeek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "antigeek", it's a growing outbreak of common sense.

    2. Re:Slashdot now antigeek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they [who say that distracted pedestrians deserve it if they get hit by cars or who say that we shouldn't be considerate toward them] drive cars and they drive the way the vast majority of other drivers *drive, then the tirade is blatant hipocrasy

      (*)To varying degrees: half second following distance / tailgating, exit from wrong lane, using exit & merging lanes or the shoulder or turning lane to pass, needlessly passing immediately before taking an exit, passing other vehicles that drive speed limit, cutting other vehicles off, refusing to let other vehicles merge or change lanes, no use of turn signals, running high-beams at all times, driving at night or in stormy weather with lights & reflectors off or broken or covered with dirt, and driving fatigued, distracted, drunk, or otherwise inattentive.

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

    I've seen this done in several German cities, especially at places where pedestrians cross a tram line. And while this was only done in specific places, not consistently everywhere in the city, the places selected were those with the highest amount of accidents.

    So yeah, good idea, and from anecdotal evidence it does appear to work (but I don't have any statistics, so take that with a huge grain of salt), and good for the Dutch town for doing something to reduce accidents, but don't use the word "pilots" in the /. title. ;-)

  37. Don't encourage the (self-absorbed) idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let Darwin takes its course.

  38. Since they are already looking at the screen... by jocarren · · Score: 1

    why not broadcoast a warning directly to the smarphone?