With the 4-way stop there is never a time in the cycle when all traffic is stopped. The drivers who are present are continuously paying attention to what other drivers are doing which robs them of situational awareness to note pedestrians. You can try and time it but that's risky. With the walk signal there is a brief moment in time when the drivers are doing nothing but waiting for you and are all stopped so you as a pedestrian can account for them in preparation just before you get your signal and make your move.
The author can get lost with this sort of textbook correct but questionable in reality take. Legally having the right of way doesn't make you any less dead when the driver who's got three other drivers to pay attention to doesn't see you.
Be careful, though - I once jaywalked when I was with some friends from the Midwest and they were very offended.
[1]: https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/mid-block-pedestrian-c...
[2]: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/least-resistance-desi...
Having almost been hit a few times by drivers making a right turn on red, I can tell you the drivers never wait even if you have the right of way. You'll be lucky if they even look for you.
> Legally having the right of way doesn't make you any less dead when the driver who's got three other drivers to pay attention to doesn't see you.
Also, and I know this is unpopular, but maybe you shouldn't dress like that if you don't want the attention.
A car turning left on green is also an issue because while they should be able to see and wait for pedestrians, they're often occluded by other cars and trucks, and those left turners can be in a hurry to proceed through a gap in traffic.
With right on red, the driver is also looking to where they are going, but legally crossing pedestrians are not there, they are directly in front of the car.
The riskiest thing for a pedestrian is approaching a right on red car from the left, because the driver is simply not looking at you.
Say a driver and pedestrian are at the same corner facing the same way and the pedestrian wants to cross into the area the driver wants to turn. The street is busy so the driver can't turn right on the red and the pedestrian isn't gonna just walk against the signal into the traffic. Cross traffic lets up, either because of a big gap or because the light has cycled to red for the cross traffic. The conditions that both parties require before making their move have just been satisfied at the same time. The pedestrian walks and the driver turns, leading to inevitable conflict. If both the driver and the pedestrian are in a hurry and trying to shoot a gap in traffic and go quickly there can be no time for either party to avoid the accident.
Edit: The above example is crosswalks only, no dedicated pedestrian signals.
That's not a thing that normally happens though. In a regular four-way intersection, if a driver is at a red light, the pedestrians that are allowed to cross are the ones that are crossing the street the car is on. If the car wants to turn right on red, then the pedestrians it has a risk of hitting don't care about the traffic that the car needs to wait for.
Because where I'm from, traffic lights are not allowed to be set up like that. No simultaneous green for crossing traffic flows, unless otherwise indicated (eg, an extra warning light+sign under the turn's traffic light flashing when it's green and off otherwise).
What's not simultaneous is a green turn arrow with a green ped crossing. Intersections in the US are designed so that a green arrow will mean the driver has no conflicts and can proceed.
Not everyone (both drivers and peds) understands that distinction.
Direct link: https://i.ibb.co/Hn36L27/Green-crossing.png
solid green (right turn allowed) + pedestrian green (for crossing).
car and ped both have access to ped crossing. (Car should yield to any ped in crossing.)
Also, I drew a picture before I realized that this wasn't what you were asking about. But I like the picture.
C
A
R
2
|
v
--------- --------
CAR1 ->
---------|ped -> -------
| |
| |
| |
C
A
R
2
--------- --------
C
---------| pAed -------
| R |
| 1 |
| |While vehicles are traveling north and south, the walk sign for crossing north and south is available. But vehicles are typically allowed to turn in the same cycle, protected lefts with their own cycle are common. Some intersections have a dedicated arrow for right turns and those will signal no rights while a walk sign is on, but otherwise pedestrians and right turns conflict.
I can't think of many places that I drive where this isn't the case.
The pedestrian crossing lights are in sync with the traffic lights, if traffic going N/S is green then the pedestrian lights going N/S will also be green even if cars are turning E/W
My anecdotal evidence is that everyone is looking out for themselves and people in bigger vehicles will always take advantage of that.
I’ve had multiple close calls where the driver looks at me angrily, I point at the white ‘walk’ symbol, and then their anger turns to confusion. They had no idea that they’re supposed to wait.
I was in the middle of a long line of cars taking a left from a left turn lane. The green arrow light turned to a yellow arrow light for a brief second before turning full green. I was at the front of the line at the time so I slowed down and waited for the car in front of me to clear the intersection before I turned so that I could see that there if was oncoming traffic who light just turned green. No oncoming traffic, start turning, notice when I'm way to far into the intersection that a pedestrian is trying to cross the 90 feet of crosswalk as well. I violate their right of way and get myself out of oncoming traffic lanes. In the rear view mirror I see the pedestrian waiting in the middle of the crosswalk for the rest of the line of traffic behind me to finish their left turns. The corner is a 120 degree turn, definitely my fault for not being aware of my surroundings but also... 120 degree turn on two 4 lane 40mph roads... the pedestrian needs a dedicated time to cross free of vehicles.
Right on red should not really be allowed. It's a real hazard.
Less visual obstructions so that oncoming traffic can be seen sooner? maybe, but probably not going to change learned behavior
Advance the crosswalk even more, with two separate lights? perhaps on a per-intersection basis
Hard square corner kerb instead of a round bevel? Might help in general.
This is called daylighting and California passed a law for it https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/daylighting
> Advance the crosswalk even more, with two separate lights?
Pedestrians already have a "leading signal" in intersections with lots of people, which makes the wall signal change before the green for cars. Right on red defeats their purpose, which is to ensure pedestrians are on the middle of the street by the time a car wants to turn, putting them where they are easiest to be seen.
> Hard square corner kerb instead of a round bevel?
Yes. I would go further and have bulb outs https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/pedestrian-improve... and at grade crossings (the zebra crossing is at the same height as the sidewalk). All of these have been proven to work.
> overshooting
I don't think there is any risk of "overshooting" in making cities nicer and safer for pedestrians and all other road users in the US. If anything it will be an uphill battle to accomplish any change.
What you're calling an "at grade crossing" is indeed a good one I missed. I would call them something like crosswalk on a speed bump, which might be "car centric" or whatever, but at least isn't overloading a term that generally refers to using different levels for actual traffic separation. Everything we're talking about here is actually an at grade crossing.
> I don't think there is any risk of "overshooting" in making cities nicer and safer for pedestrians and all other road users in the US. If anything it will be an uphill battle to accomplish any change.
You really don't see the possibility of backlash to "no turn on red" everywhere creating a campaign of drivers getting frustrated while waiting for timed red lights to change at completely quiet intersections?
And also FWIW, "no turn on red" doesn't actually prevent drivers from driving into the pedestrian crossing area - it just removes the benefit. It would still take a generation or two to change learned behavior.
There's a red light I run - frequently - in the mornings going to work. I stop. If the cross traffic has a green light, I stay stopped. When the light provides a protected green arrow for left turns for traffic going the opposite way, I'll run it if no cars are visible coming toward me. It would be better as a simple four-way stop, but our city traffic engineer is a self-important idiot who refuses to take even a suggestion from people who drive the area daily. I discovered this during a prolonged power outage that took down a route that I pretty much had to use to leave my neighborhood at the time. Outside of rush hour, the intersection functioned much better as a four-way stop than as a signalled intersection. But that was inappropriate for two arterials (one of them really is, but the other is only one at commuting times, and at off-hours neither is especially busy).
I think what you're sensing was terseness of response because I was writing on a phone.
> What you're calling an "at grade crossing" is indeed a good one I missed. I would call them something like crosswalk on a speed bump, which might be "car centric" or whatever, but at least isn't overloading a term that generally refers to using different levels for actual traffic separation. Everything we're talking about here is actually an at grade crossing.
They are usually called "continuous sidewalks", but the terminology is locale dependent (not every place calls them sidewalks).
> You really don't see the possibility of backlash to "no turn on red" everywhere creating a campaign of drivers getting frustrated while waiting for timed red lights to change at completely quiet intersections?
Anything that is perceived as a source of frustration will cause backlash. That's not a reason not to do things that have been proven to work better. Dedicated bus lanes and congestion charges always get backlash, for example, but after implemented traffic always ends up flowing more smoothly, which does make driving less stressful. "No turn on red" is the default in most of the planet. Forbidding it in cities (particularly downtown and during the day) shouldn't be a problem.
> it just removes the benefit. It would still take a generation or two to change learned behavior.
I think that people adapt much faster than generationally. And it is important to change incentives. Incentives affect us way more than we realize. Something as trivial as changing the coloring or texture of the intersections causes us to change our behavior in ways we wouldn't necessarily notice unless we paid a lot of attention.
When its a few bad apples its an enforcement issue. When its many bad apples its a design issue.
We all get it, we are all late now and then, but unless you are literally trying to catch a plane or a boat, in all likelihood you can sit your candy ass down and wait a minute.
The other great benefit is you can cross the diagonal (kitty corner).
(I'm also amused at the idea of making a beg button for cars. Maybe make cars have to text a phone number to beg the light the change. If cars had less annoying to the neighborhood horns you could have "horn recognition" and use the horn as a universal button.)
Have you ever taken the selective attention test?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo (short 1:22 video)
>Also, and I know this is unpopular, but maybe you shouldn't dress like that if you don't want the attention.
in driver's ed you're taught to "drive defensively" i think the same applies to pedestrians. Don't just step into the road when the walk sign comes on, have some situational awareness and protect yourself.
The trade off is that the pedestrian has pretty much no right of way anywhere but a crossing, and cars will drive at you (or at least not stop for you) if you try to cross somewhere that is not a crossing. Though "Jaywalking" is not a thing and you can actually cross where ever you like.
It's illegal in most if not all of USA too, but no one cares in practice. Legally, even when a car driver and a pedestrian both have access to a lane separately, if both are present, then a car driver must give a full lane-width of space to a pedestrian crossing or at the corner.
Also, even when a pedestrian is committing the auto-industry-invented crime of "jaywalking", the pedestrian still has the right of way in traffic, unless it is physically impossible for the car driver to avoid the collision. Car drivers are not judge/jury/executioner.
(Nit: "Cars" don't "drive" (yet, in most places). "Car drivers" drive cars.)
"Cars driving at you" is probably a dialectical thing.
That's not true, or at least it's bad/illegal driving if they do so, a pedestrian who is 'established in the road' as the right of way anywhere.
As you said:
> Though "Jaywalking" is not a thing and you can actually cross where ever you like.
Otherwise it would be a contradiction wouldn't it? If the pedestrians allowed to be there, the motorist obviously isn't allowed to run them over, ... I suppose you could say the pedestrian can continue crossing but only after first giving way to the motorist? There'd be more time with pedestrians in the road though.
Not that I recommend using that fact to cross when you don't have time, because you will anger motorists. Or they could not see you/be paying attention. They'd be wrong, but it's just not worth it, obviously.
I know the laws surrounding cycling and pedestrians changed even recently, but no one in my experience actually cares and carries on as before.
If you are crossing a busy road, no one will stop for you. Maybe parts of the UK that are more rural are different, but in cities this is the case. You will always get across at a crossing, and cars are generally not trying to run you down. Though, Zebra crossings have started in recent times to be more problematic, and I see people driving across them whilst people are still on the crossing regularly.
Anecdote example: When I was a kid I got clipped by a car because of this (the heel of my back foot got struck by a car who was basically giving nothing and driving at me, despite me being over 50% across a road that was only 2 lanes and not particularly wide.) In North America this doesn't happen. Cars will drive at you, but they will generally stop and let you go. In the UK you are made to feel like a criminal for daring to cross a road most of the time.
In Toronto for instance, the majority of pedestrian deaths are caused by impaired/distracted drivers with a significant portion of failure to yield by left turning drivers at major, light controlled intersections.
There isn't even a category for "four way stop" pedestrian fatalities.
Having lived in both Toronto and SF, both cities with 4-way stop and controlled lights intersections.
I'll take 4-way stop any day since speeds are lower. Much better to get hit by a car at near zero speed than a right or left turning car at higher speed. Which is probably why Toronto doesn't have a category for four way stop fatalities.
(The worst are SF's 2-way stops at intersections between equally-sized roads that show up randomly throughout Sunset. Worst of both worlds.)
Exactly. People are, at worst, doing a "rolling stop" so they are still only going a few kph when they "didn't see" you.
As a cyclist, I've been yelled at by drivers for not stopping at that type of intersection, where they have a stop sign and I don't. People are working off of their personal version of the rules of the road, where they are always right.
If you think that's bad, Seattle has 0-way stops at intersections in residential. AFAIK, the rule is if you have a stop sign, you must stop; if you don't have a stop sign and other directions do, you have right of way and should proceed if safe; if you don't have a stop sign and neither does anyone else, treat it as an all-way stop. But from my observations, common behavior is to make it through the intersection about half way before realizing there are no stop signs and then just continue through because what else can you do at that point?
Here's a particularly challenging example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/gmuFk8jbo4GMJ1Ru7 where five roads come together with no signage.
Using that data doesn't remotely begin to predict what happens when you take a small four-way stop and add a signal to control it. Adding a signal does not create new conflict points, it does not increase the speed limit on the road, all it does is control the intersection in a more aggressive way.
That's not what the point plot of the Toronto data shows. Many of our fatalities are on city streets with 40 or 50 km/h speed limits.
Anyway, I was responding to the OP who was claiming that they would rather deal with stop lights than 4 way stops. There is nothing that shows that 4 way stops are dangerous at all, let alone more dangerous than light controlled stops in similar situations.
That's... not true? With light traffic a 4 way stop should have no cars at all at it most of the time, leaving pedestrians with the right of way, whereas with a traffic light there will always be a road with priority until a pedestrian hits the button. Requiring cars to pay attention to the condition of the intersection is the explicit design goal.
This was laid out very clearly in the article we just read.
Unless there's protected right turns, of course.
>This was laid out very clearly in the article we just read.
<facepalm>
This is what I mean about theory vs reality.
4-way stops don't look like the animation they show you in driver's ed. In practice what happens is that non conflicting traffic tends to parallelize so someone taking a left might start their left while the person across from them is finishing theirs (or one of any other bunch of combinations) so there's a car in motion basically all the time the situational awareness of every driver who's about to get their turn is mostly absorbed in monitoring who's turn it is and who's going where.
So when you're a pedestrian and you don't time it right you could find yourself starting to cross right before someone wants to drive where you're crossing. Usually this is because you started walking before it was their turn and they didn't notice you until it was their turn and they started moving (because they were accounting for the other traffic) until it was their turn at which point they started looking where they were going as well. Normally this results in absolutely nothing, you speed up a little, they don't gas it as hard, everyone goes on their merry way. But the potential for things to go badly if the conflicting driver is inattentive or further distracted is very much there.
Sure, theoretically the rules say they shouldn't do that but that's not how reality works.
There's just so much less potential for conflict if there is a scheduled time when all the cars stop and then the walking happens. Even without a dedicated walk time it's just so much easier to time it when there's a light because you can start walking when all the cars have red and only have to look out for right on red or potential red light runners, it's a much easier problem than the degree of swiveling your head around you need to do to at a busy 4-way.
This article didn’t touch on it, but there’s another even scarier monster lurking out there. They’ve started to replace some of our larger intersections with these “Smart” traffic lights. Most drivers have a pretty well developed feel for the pattern traffic signals follow. These are pretty much random, adjusting the traffic flow based on some metrics. They use yield left turns with single direction flow and other tricks to try and control traffic. Since the light cycle doesn’t really follow any standard pattern, they’re also pretty much random when they’ll insert the protected pedestrian crossing into the cycle. It’s a death trap. There can be people waiting at a yield left turn which will be going to red, it will click on the pedestrian walk, and the opposing traffic will still be in full green, with drivers never coming to a stop. Add to that, if volume is heavy, you can stand there for 5 minutes or more waiting for a protected pedestrian crossing.
Right, that's the intent. Drivers paying attention to their surroundings is the goal.
> So if you're a pedestrian and you don't time it right you could find yourself starting to cross right before someone wants to drive where you're crossing. Usually this is because you started walking before it was their turn...
You have the right of way!
> There's just so much less potential for conflict if there is a scheduled time when all the cars stop and then the walking happens.
How about a system where all cars are expected to stop all the time?
Which, while true, in no way guarantees the driver sees you. If they miss seeing you for some reason, you very well may end up on the losing end of the physics of a collision between a 150lb object and a 3000lb object.
The drivers are paying attention to the cars, not the pedestrians
> You have the right of way!
Graveyards are full of people who had the right of way.
In the real world, drivers don't pay attention to their surroundings; instead, they look for other cars to avoid being hit. Further down the list is avoiding static obstacles like street lights or bollards. Lastly, they may think of looking for pedestrians. In other words, they care about their safety, not their neighbor's.
Cyclists, if even noticed in the first place, are seen as nothing but a nuisance that should be overtaken at all cost, even when they are about to reach a stop light and there's no room to pass safely.
> You have the right of way!
A non insignificant number of drivers believe that "might is right" and will knowingly play chicken with you if they perceive that they are safer in the event of a collision. As a vulnerable road user, you don't know whether the driver you are interacting with will be one of the 95% of reasonable people or one of the 5% of insecure bullies.
Encouraging anti-social people's deadly hobbies is terrible for the community.
> Sure, theoretically the rules say they shouldn't do that but that's not how reality works.
Do you have any evidence for this or are you just making this up as you type? Because it's a bit rich to be harping about "reality" otherwise.
A large body of research supports traffic calming measures for pedestrian safety and to increase driver awareness. A four-way stop intersection surrounded by intersections that also have stop signs (as indicated by the article) would fit that bill.
Was the upgrade worth $600,000 in this town, this street? And why, if it is a small town with heavy pedestrian traffic, does it default to vehicular movement instead of pedestrian movement?
I find this perspective very weird when (1) the "textbook" take (i.e. the one traffic engineers follow) is to almost always prioritize vehicle speed and driver safety over everything else, and (2) in what world is it questionable in reality when it existed in reality for decades, seemingly without incident?
The first "running the red light" car at 11sec has his/her bumper fully over the white line in the last yellow-light video frame and his wheel fully on the line in the first video frame when the light is red. The second "running the red light car" has the entire car more than half way across the intersection with the light still yellow.
His point still stands that people are rushing to make the light, but it does his point no good to exaggerate like that.
While the 4-way-stop was maybe better for pedestrians, as traffic increased that would degrade.
Overall, it probably would be favorable to fix it in favor of pedestrians instead of vehicles, and to that end they should be narrowing the street and adding close-in trees and obstacles to cue the drivers that it is a much slower zone.
It turned out that that was because they installed a cobblestone speed bump in front of every crosswalk. Cars slowed down even if no pedestrians were around, because otherwise they were going to pop a tire. It made walking so much safer than anywhere else I've been.
In my area, there are plenty of stop lights with pedestrian signals where both are active at the same time. This allows the traffic to flow if there are no pedestrians on the assumption the drivers will recognize the pedestrians have right of way. To me, this is bat shit crazy level of assumptions. Either protect the pedestrians, or you might as well remove the pedestrian signal.
Video actually shows two cars entering the intersection on yellow lights, which is legal. The rest of the article seems similarly exaggerated.
----
Edit: For those who disagree, please be aware that the stop lines are out of frame, so both cars are already in the intersection before they're visible on the video. You can get a better picture of what the intersection actually looks like here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/L37hZyvXs8BeWmFE8
The article says that the street design causes drivers to speed up and makes the intersections unsafe.
Instead of drivers always stopping, or at the very least slowing down, when approaching the intersection, the new street design leads to drivers speeding up when approaching the intersection.
This is bad design for pedestrians irrespective of whether the driver jumps a light, the pedestrians cross when they shouldn’t be, or neither of them are doing anything wrong.
It will increase the odds of collisions, injuries and possibly fatalities.
The article states “… and I captured two drivers ripping through red lights in that short span.” I suppose “ripping through” can be left up to interpretation.
However, in the video the author says “that person just ran a stop… a red light right in the middle of me filming.” Then the other he says: “I bet this guy runs the light. Yup, see, this person ran the light, too.”
“Running” a red light is an illegal act.
I think in both cases the cars should have slowed down and had plenty of time to stop before entering the intersection. But, evidently that’s legal in California, while the author indicates otherwise.
There really isn't enough information given to make a determination.
It looks like two of the vehicles traveling on Lemon "jump" due to a ridge in the middle of the intersection but that itself isn't an indication of speeding.
Enforcement is basically non-existent, but it's absolutely "running the light" and "breaking the law" to accelerate into yellow lights.
> A yellow traffic signal light means CAUTION. The light is about to turn red. When you see a yellow traffic signal light, stop, if you can do so safely. If you cannot stop safely, cautiously cross the intersection.
The bright line rule is not to enter the intersection on a red light, defined as crossing the stop line if present, crossing the first line of a pedestrian crossing if present, or actually entering the intersection if there are no lines.
Just because 2 things are illegal they aren't the same, and it takes away all seriousness from the article for me.
His point is absolutely correct - the cars used to stop, and now instead they're accelerating to beat a light change.
I genuinely don't know if that's actually illegal in cali - but it definitely is in several states, and you'll get ticketed for failing to stop for a red light.
---
> but in other parts of the world yellow and red are different colors.
Yellow is the light that means "start stopping" and red is the one that means "absolutely stop". Neither damn color is the "go faster" color.
My state, which is one of the ones you are talking about, only will give you a ticket for going over the speed limit through a yellow light, not for accelerating up to the speed limit. If you proceed through a yellow without going above the speed limit (even if accelerating) and do so because you were in the intersection already (at or beyond the stop line) you will not receive a ticket (assuming you can prove it).
Accelerating through a yellow over the speed limit is just asking for a speeding ticket in just about any state.
Because the article is clearly biased. If I wanted biased articles I could go anywhere else on internet.
the author's point is valid and we're falling into pedantry
Those cars didn’t have time to stop safely. They would have had to slam on the breaks, which is very dangerous because the car behind you might not stop in time. Speeding up to get through in time is the right decision if you are very close to the intersection when the light turns yellow.
(v²) / (2a) ≤ (v × t_y) + L
v = vehicle speed (meters per second)
a = comfortable deceleration rate (meters per second squared)
t_y = yellow light duration (seconds)
L = length of the intersection (meters)
You can calculate the minimum yellow time for this using t_y ≥ (v / 2a) - (L / v)
This is rudimentary and doesn't account for reaction time, but a simple buffer would suffice.
The failure is largely in poor planning and poor human behavior.
Per a random law firm: California’s yellow light law permits drivers to enter an intersection during a yellow light. No violation exists unless any part of the car is over the stopping line when the light turns red. However, the law encourages drivers to slow down before reaching the intersection.
Whereas in, for example, Massachusetts, this would be considered running a red light.
https://www.wccbc.com/red-and-yellow-light-accidents/#:~:tex....
If this doesn't make sense still, picture this scenario: You are driving at the speed limit. You are 500ms from crossing the stop line threshold. The light turns yellow.
Your interpretation would make sense only if there were a (paler yellow?) light warning of the yellow light!
You can't have an instant switch between go/stop which yellow— effectively meaning unsafe stopping distance go, safe stopping distance stop— solves very neatly.
That's how it works in Poland and it works reasonably well.
On the other hand when light is about to turn green, yellow lights up. So red and yellow at the same time means prepare to go.
In practice, I have never seen it applied, and it is only a small fine anyways, much less serious than running a red light. I guess it can be used as an excuse if the police really wants to pull you over.
On this note: In the UK, there is a yellow light prior to green; love it.
This encourages people to run the light by trying to turn exactly as the countdown timer hits 0, trying to race against pedestrians trying to cross crossing pedestrians.
Based on my own experience, I'd estimate that well over 99% of traffic infractions go entirely ignored by the law: minor speed violations, unsignaled lane changes, rolling stops at stop signs, expired tags, cell phone usage, and yes, running red lights.
When the letter of the law is broader in scope or errs on the side of caution, that enables the police to exercise their judgment in enforcing it (with the obvious caveat that some police will abuse any power you give them). You could imagine a scenario where someone technically runs a red light but it's totally justifiable and safe (heavy load + moderate speed + short yellow + no other traffic) and another where someone technically makes it into the intersection on a yellow light but senselessly severely endangers public safety (busy intersection + rapid acceleration + traffic backed up on the other side of the light).
I would be okay with someone evading a ticket in the first case and getting one in the latter.
The most annoying scenario is where a driver has either stopped or inched forwards far enough that they can't actually see the lights any more and don't know when they've changed.
The basic way the timing goes is: traffic light changes, pedestrian crossing signal illuminates, traffic going straight that squeezed in on the yellow finally clears the intersection, cars turning left finally get a chance to go, pedestrian can finally safely enter the intersection with approximately 10 seconds left to cross a four lane street, lights change again, cars start honking at the older person with mobility issues who could only get halfway across the intersection in the time they had available to safely do it, impatient driver from further back in the line who doesn't care to figure out why the person in front hasn't started moving even though the light has been green for five full seconds swerves into the right turn lane and guns it, narrowly missing the aforementioned older person with mobility issues as they blast through the intersection.
Do you have some sort of countdown, or innate knowledge?
Because, otherwise do you just randomly stop at green lights guessing that a yellow light might come on? Or do you drive so slowly that you can stop in the width of the white line before a pedestrian crossing? Really, I'm trying to figure out how you don't ever enter just as a light turns yellow. Once you do, do you stop in the intersection or try to clear it before it turns red? I hope the latter.
For me yellow lights are a warning that a red light is coming. It should be long enough for cars to clear the intersection (in many states without gridlock rules even this is not the case for left hand turns).
My experience in Boston is that drivers try to beat the green light change and accelerate while it's still red.
Correct, yellow means "start slowing and stop before the intersection if you can do so safely, otherwise proceed". Red means "do not proceed if you aren't already in the intersection".
This is why the opposing traffic signal and walk signal will wait for a second or two after red: to allow people who entered on yellow to finish their transit across the intersection.
Indeed, in the author's own video where they incorrectly claim someone ran a red light, the author had no legal right to cross anyways, so there was no chance of the author getting injured unless they ran a red light at the crosswalk.
In short, the author seems most frustrated that the situation changed from everyone waiting on him, to him waiting a few seconds for others.
often, in the form of the pedestrian signal.
> try to clear it before it turns red?
This is the rule in much of the world, yes.
Also, if nobody presses a button ped-lights don't even turn on, just like left turn signals don't turn on without a vehicle triggering it.
This is no longer true in many cities. Most SF crosswalks don’t require a press anymore, many don’t in LA, and all don’t in New York. AFAIK it was a Covid thing, back when people thought surfaces spread the virus, but it stuck.
The major problem is that on very congested streets, the driver won't know if the exit will be free of traffic when the light turns red. Blocking the intersection is illegal.
To a certain degree, it is a failing of Civic design and the ruleset. The solution is generally no left turns during peak hours, which is a duct tape fix
If you’ve entered the intersection on green or orange, and must await oncoming traffic before you can safely turn left, then the light turns red before oncoming traffic clears, once that traffic has indeed stopped for the red, you need to complete your left turn to clear the intersection, even on red.
This situation is clearly spelled out in the driving manuals for my state.
If you are not willing to continue on if the light turns red while you are in the intersection, then don’t enter the intersection until it’s clear - wait behind the line.
Other traffic (who are now, or have been) waiting at a red light should be able to tell you’re in the way and wait for you to move.
This also encourages drivers to actually stop in the right place (since they can't see the light otherwise), and it's friendlier for pedestrians since it avoids drivers stopping on top of the crosswalk.
(I've also never heard of the turn-right-on-red rule anywhere other than the US. Over here in Portugal if it's fine to turn right while the light is red, there's just going to be a separate green/flashing light to turn right. A lot clearer!)
We do this kind of thing in many other places in life. Imagine if we didn’t use barriers anywhere and only used painted lines to tell people where to be - don’t walk to this side of the line, that’s where the valuables are “stored” (no walls, just markings.)
We use ‘guardrails’ all over the place. Sometimes to nudge people (one can jump a literal guardrail), sometimes to prevent injury (you simply cannot physically access the active industrial robot without intentional effort), and all kinds of inconvenience in between to suggest where to be.
Place the lights so that they’re only visible further back, and people will stop further back.
If you implement your plan I would never even see the light become red!
I cross the line slowly, and some pedestrian darts out, so I stop, by the time they cross, the opposing traffic has a green, I however (in your scenario) do not know this because I can't see that the light is red for me.
So now I'm driving forward, thinking I'm good and some car comes flying through because it's green for them, and they can't see me because of the layout of the block.
I need to see and know that the light is red and just stop and wait there.
Similar things happen when the car in front of me wants to turn left, but didn't bother with a blinker - I'm in the intersection, past the line, and suddenly I need to stop because he's turning. He turned, but now it's red for me and I better wait right there, and not go forward, because other cars are about to drive.
You also aren't taking into account the varying heights of cars. If I'm in car behind a van, I won't be able to see the light because it's directly above the van so I can't see it.
Also:
Your goal is to keep cars from going too far into the intersection after a red, right?
The problem is you are assuming this happens due to incompetence, but it actually happens because of driving conditions like I mentioned.
This is not a hypothetical "if", pretty much every country in Europe has traffic lights set up like this. Just take a look at Lisbon or Amsterdam in street view to see what I mean.
Note that I'm assuming an unprotected left turn (with right hand traffic as in the US) at a busy intersection with incoming cars running yellow lights; please let me know if any part of my assumption mismatches yours.
This competency shortfall is present in other transportation- and infrastructure-related fields. See for example how badly North American construction companies and government bureaucracies handle big transit projects. Third-world levels of mediocrity compared to the cost-effective, competent management in, say, Spain or Japan.
A couple weeks ago, a 55mph limit near me was lowered to 50mph. A cop watched during the busy times for a few days. Now everyone is generally going 5mph slower than they were. Seems successful so far.
Perhaps the author of this article is upset that the neighborhood now has more traffic than it used to, but that's a different issue.
Also, I'd like to point out that normal does not mean good, or best.
That does not appear to be the case in California, which this article is written about. It seems to be a bit confusing, because there are suggestions that the driver handbook suggests that you should follow the rule you note, but that the law itself has no such requirement.
In practice, in many areas of coastal California almost no one would stop at a yellow unless they felt they could not enter the intersection before it turned red, and doing otherwise would likely be seen as impeding traffic by many other drivers.
Just as the yellow light is intended as a "start slowing down" but is interpreted as "speed up to beat the light", the speed limit sign is intended as a "do not exceed this speed" but is interpreted as "you must be traveling this speed".
If we assumed that most vehicles are traveling the speed limit or faster, which is the case in my experience, then accelerating further is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
Given that, even if someone entered the intersection on yellow, they would be out of the intersection before perpendicular cars/bicycles/pedestrian signals turn green, how is it dangerous?
It seems the risk of collision is 0 as long as neither the driver nor the perpendicular cars/bicycles/pedestrians are illegally running red signals.
When a driver sees a yellow light, they must make a call: do I have time to safely slow down and stop before reaching the stop location, or not? If I do, then I must start slowing down right away - that much we agree o. But if I don't, then I mustn't slow down, as that is more likely to leave me in the middle of the intersection while the lights turn green for through-traffic.
This is not true in the strong form you used. There is a regime where there is no possibility you will be able to stop the vehicle in time using reasonable deceleration. Slowing does no good. There is also a regime where slowing will cause you to enter the intersection during the red light, and not decelerating will not.
The first car isn't even through the crosswalk when the light turns red. Racing through a crosswalk to beat a light is the definition of dangerous driving.
Is this not the law in California?
21453 (a) which prohibits crossing the stop line when the light is red [1]. And 22526 (a) which prohibits entering an intersection when the exit isn't clear. [2]
You have to be able to clear the intersection if you enter it, and you have to enter it on green or yellow (except for turn on red after a stop), but you don't have to clear the intersection before it goes red.
Common practice (which might not be 100% legal) for unprotected lefts on green (where space permits) is for the first car to fully enter the intersection and the second car to roll over the line a bit, then for both vehicles to clear the intersection when opposing traffic stops which may be in yellow or red. The driver that's only a bit in the intersection can make a judgement call and stay slightly encroaching rather than clear the intersection if clearing seems inadvisable because opposing traffic was slow to stop.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
[2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
Cross traffic MUST wait for cars to clear the intersection.
Edit: As a related pet peeve I've never understood why we don't have countdowns for car traffic lights like we do for pedestrians. These IMO would not only increase safety but also fuel savings (especially if we had them for each signal change) as I could time my arrival at the traffic light to minimize braking and acceleration.
The first car passed the first line when the light was yellow, but not the second line. The area in between is the crosswalk. I can't tell if "enter the intersection" means "enter any part of the area past the line where you're supposed to stop" or "enter the part past the crosswalk, where the roads actually intersect".
Does anyone know what the rule is?
> A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b). [subdivision b allows for turns on red]
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
Complicated or ambiguous rules are a part of life. If the idea is to get rid of anything that requires lots of rules, then we'd all still be on foot. No cars, no horses, no bikes. Would that be a net improvement?
For example, say you're entering the intersection on green/yellow, but the car in front suddenly stops while you're on the crosswalk, possibly not even seeing the light on the side of the road, but no part of your car is impeding the cross traffic. Well, even if the car in front now clears the intersection, if the light has turned red, you should almost certainly stop and wait for the next green light, rather than trying to clear the crosswalk: doing anything else is much more dangerous.
The second wasn't even close to running the light.
> the stop lines are out of frame
Is the car in the freeze frame in a legal position given the red light? It would appear not.
It's not against California vehicle code to be in an intersection when the light is red. It's not even necessarily against vehicle code to be in an intersection when the light is red for you and green for perpindicular traffic (although it's an imminent hazard, so you better have a good reason).
To show a red light violation, you need a datestamped image showing the vehicle behind the stop line with a red light showing, and a near in time image of it in the intersection on red, and probably another one to show that it didn't make an allowed right on red. Really, you also need evidence that the red light was steady, and not a flashing red light which would indicate four way stop and the driver could proceed after stopping. Typically, you wouldn't see red showing on both directions at the same time in a flashing red situation, but cameras are fickle.
The vehicle entered the intersection, by crossing the first line of the pedestrian crossing which is out of frame, while the light is yellow. The exit was clear when the vehicle entered the intersection, so there's no violation there, and it may proceed through the intersection. Cross traffic doesn't enter the intersection for a few seconds after it clears; and there are no pedestrians engaged with the intersection either, so there's no safety concern. The next car that goes through the yellow is fully in the intersection on yellow, so there's no question of a violation there, although again they were in the intersection on red although I think that one cleared before the perpendicular traffic got a green, unlike the vehicle in the images.
Given the red light, is the car in a legal position in the freeze frame?
This picture is LEGAL in most US states as long as the car entered the intersection ON A GREEN OR YELLOW light.
https://www.wccbc.com/red-and-yellow-light-accidents/#:~:tex....
Some quick Googling shows that "it depends on where" appears to be the right answer. New Jersey appears to be a populated jurisdiction where this might not be legal.
I looked at the link and NO, they DO NOT DISAGREE. Read the language, drivers SPEEDING through a yellow light MAY be found negligent if they cause an injury to someone.
"California’s yellow light law permits drivers to enter an intersection during a yellow light. No violation exists unless any part of the car is over the stopping line when the light turns red. However, the law encourages drivers to slow down before reaching the intersection.
In California, the yellow light law provides that drivers are automatically “warned” by the light turning yellow that the traffic light is about to change to red. This means that a faulty driver cannot avoid responsibility for an accident simply by claiming that they didn’t see the yellow light.
It doesn’t matter if they saw it or not. Drivers speeding through a yellow light may be found negligent for not slowing down if their driving caused an accident or injured others."
"No violation exists unless any part of the car is over the stopping line when the light turns red."
But I'm not a lawyer and this is interpreting an interpretation.
You are also litigating whether or not it's legal. A lot of traditions of California driving are legal and really dangerous. My dude, CVC doesn't even apply in a private parking lot for example, so you can accidentally kill somebody in one and legally face no moving violations. "Legal" is not an interesting criteria at all, it's misleading.
If you are going to put something on the internet about bad design you should make sure you understand it first.
I think the defacto rule that many drivers follow is, 'if the intersection appears clear, I don't have to stop.' (I'm not advocating this rule, just saying what I think the rule is.) Cell phones and screens in cars have made this rule especially problematic because drivers aren't paying close enough attention to the road to ascertain whether intersections are clear.
This isn't a recent phenomenon in LA, but it seems to have increased during and since Covid. I'd love to find reliable data on traffic enforcement. The problem is cultural, but the apparent lack of enforcement seems to have expanded the population of scofflaw drivers.
Law enforcement officers in all these places never pull people over for this stuff.
They entered the intersection on a yellow light, which is perfectly legal if they could not stop.
[0] https://www.maxapress.com/data/article/dts/preview/pdf/DTS-2...
Though it's nice on pedestrian signals.
It'd eliminate the incentive to drag race, would give drivers more information earlier allowing better driving, and would generally make speeds limits actually a limit on roads with traffic lights.
But like I said, politically impossible, there's a very strong constituency and lobby of people who like cars and like speeding and will come up with excuses for why it couldn't work. For instance New York State restricts New York City to only putting speed cameras in school zones because of that group of people.
[1] https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/speed-camera-faq....
[2] https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/Open-Parking-a...
https://crowplatform.com/product/design-manual-for-bicycle-t... (non-profit advisor to the ministry of transport)
Also, bike traffic and vehicle through traffic are separated on different networks, so a conflicts are minimized.
I used to work a few blocks from this intersection and would walk daily to the train. Crossing the street was daunting, especially when we time changed and it was dark. I started carrying reflective labels on my backback and I wore a strobe light when crossing.
I _still_ had people flipping me off, swerving around me, honking, etc for my audacity to use a crosswalk. Going to remote work probably saved my life.
It also says something that the behavior of the cars here isn't even illegal in California. Entering an intersection on yellow and exiting on red is fine. Right turn on red is also allowed, and many people combine that with a California stop (though that last part isn't legal). All of the above are extremely hazardous for pedestrians and encourage speeding.
The author knows the answer as well as most readers do: because the intersection is being designed with cars in mind, not human beings.
It forces drivers to reduce speed and come to a full stop; dramatically decreasing the likelihood of collisions with pedestrians they did not notice.
This is a bad faith framing. The cars are driven by humans. Or in the case of autonomous driving, are driving humans around.
I've come up to plenty of lights that had the pedestrian signal lit even though there were no pedestrians. This happens during the day and at night, and is frustrating. Just happened the other day when I was driving around midnight. Not a pedestrian in sight!
If we want better cities and towns, zealotry won't get us very far. It will get us laughed at. And I say this as someone who walks all the time and is about to do so right now.
Separately: In a small town, it's objectively nicer to have certain areas that are walkable without navigating traffic.
Sure, I don't have a problem with that.
In America, with our current wealth disparity, that leaves their interests wildly over-represented in policy and infrastructure.
Without looking up statistics (and I'd love to be proven wrong here), I'd be willing to guess that roundabouts may result in some marginal increase in minor accidents but massively reduces fatalities or accidents that leave the pedestrian in the ICU.
Additionally with a roundabout the crossing can be moved a few cars down the street away from the roundabout itself so that cars can have line of sight to safely approach the crossing and pedestrians have time to react to incoming vehicles. On top of that proper placement of crossings allows a normal zebra crossing to be upgraded to a pelican, puffin, or toucan crossing without impeding flow of traffic within the roundabout.
But otherwise somewhat easier to navigate.
More than 1-lane and they're a disaster waiting to happen
So a disaster with significantly better outcomes than a red light runner (with a high speed side swipe or head collision)
From a car perspective, it's just a matter of getting in the right lane for the exit you want.
Seems like it's still worse for pedestrians as they have to wait for the beg button.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/massdot-guidelines-for-the-planning...
It provides solid guidance on how roundabouts should approach crossings to minimize risk of accidents or collisions without impeding traffic.
Probably the best graphic is on page 45, figure 5-13
Both as a pedestrian and driver I prefer roundabouts as they force drivers to slow down to non-lethal speeds and there's typically a one car length of road between the turn and pedestrian crossing, so the cars are already going straight when they cross it.
The only road users who don't mix well with roundabouts are cyclists on cycling lanes, as they get in and out of view too fast.
The issue with roundabouts is that drivers never look to the right while entering. We have a few around me in Long Beach and when you're on foot you may as well be invisible.
it's quite useful, if you ask me, it combines the best of both solutions. of course the traffic light has a countdown so if someone presses it immediately after having worked, it will wait for 30sec/1 min before being red again
Years ago I worked in a building on the side of a long straight road. The road ended with a blind curve to the right and 100m before the blind curve there was a pedestrian crossing.
Even though all drivers knew they would need to brake for the blind curve (it was visible and there were signs) the majority of them used to drive very fast and basically did not let people cross the road, only to push very hard on the brakes 10 meters beyond the pedestrian crossing.
For lowering the high speed, we can also stack roundabouts, curbs (ie diverge and coverage the road).
The other positive of raised curbs is that we can add shrubbery as a natural traffic barrier, and there are some nice safety impacts from this too, such as reduced road runoff / flash flooding - and environmental factors like shade and cooling.
Plus it costs money to do the traffic survey and analysis to decide if you wanted to build the thing in the first place, and to determine the cycle timings. If you need to run an environmental impact report, that's more money on analysis.
Here's some estimates for component prices https://wbt.dot.state.fl.us/ois/tsmo/TrafficSignalBudgetingC... which I don't think includes installation. Probably $50k to $100k for the hardware, but there's a lot of labor, and engineering time.
I’m surprised its not a $6m project honestly.
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4142/Central-Park-Playground-...
It's a nice playground design for sure, but it's kind of amazing to consider what could be built privately for the same amount. You could literally build a palace on a giant estate with fancy landscaping, a swimming pool, tennis courts, movie theater, etc.
Of course there are reasons why public projects are more expensive, but it does seem pretty crazy on the surface.
You don't artificially start unnecessarily high.
If you do you are basically stealing from taxpayers to give gifts to unions.
You said 1/3 minimum wage as a strawman. Not to mention minimum wages aren't necessary anyway - like you said "it’s really hard to hire even at minimum wage these days".
Pay market wages, without external forces driving wages higher. Because, higher wages means higher costs, and if you are government that's essentially theft from your taxpayers.
Quite often what happens is
- Pedestrian presses button
- Light doesn't change for 30 seconds and there are no cars in sight
- Pedestrian goes "fuck it" and crosses
- Light changes red, after pedestrian is done crossing
- Car comes along and gets stopped at red light for 30 seconds
Some intersections have exactly this for cars already.
They eventually turned it into an actual four-way, thankfully. I think everyone would have been happier if they just hadn't messed with it in the first place.
I've had way more problems at 4 way stops than intersections controlled by lights.
Claiming this makes the intersection less safe despite the engineering studies that were conducted is a claim made without evidence. Pedestrians not having permanent right of way isn’t a safety issue, as the author admits, it’s a convenience issue.
It seems like the author is against cars in principle and uses that bias to complain about something that makes it easier for cars despite having no demonstrable impact on safety.
I live near Barcelona and in the city, stop signs are very rare. Its signals everywhere aside from little low-traffic back streets — and Barcelona is perfectly walkable. Cars are more likely to roll through a four way stop than a red traffic light — especially if they don’t see any conflicting traffic. And at night, stop signs are less safe because you might be pulling out and a pedestrian walks out in front of you — while with traffic signals, it’s clear whose turn it is. Cyclists also seem more prone to ignoring 4-way stops than traffic lights.
Here’s a study from Montreal that, among its other conclusions, showed that signals had no impact on pedestrian-vehicle interactions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...
“… the models were unable to demonstrate a significant relationship between stop signs and vehicle–pedestrian interactions. Therefore, drawing conclusions regarding pedestrian safety is difficult.”
Where I live, this doesn't happen because there's not enough pedestrians to justify it. When I drive in Seattle, the lights never idle, but pedestrian cycles are always included.
With a non-scramble intersection, not including pedestrians by default allows for faster cycling, including for pedestrians that want to cross the alternate way. With a scramble intersection, I'd bet if a pedestrian shows up and pushes the button, an idle green will go yellow immediately. Yes, it's a longer wait than crossing immediately as you would at an idle intersection, but now you can cross diagonally, so that may be a win.
It's worth checking with the traffic engineer to see how they would decide to always include a pedestrian cycle, perhaps during times of high pedestrian use like during hours where students are likely to cross the street between classes.
When a driver is speeding up to "make" a yellow light their attention turns to nothing but the yellow light or even worse the state of the next intersection/light beyond the one they are speeding through. The existence of the green/yellow light gives drivers carte blanche to not need to think about the current state of the crossing because "the light tells me there should be nothing there anyways".
Where as a driver slowing down to "roll" a stop sign has their attention set to basically the opposite. They are generally focused on things like, is there a car I'm going to hit? is there a pedestrian crossing? is there a cop down the street waiting to give me a ticket?
In Poland blinking green has the same meaning.
In Berlin and Sydney green for pedestrians is very short and basically lets you enter the crossing. But red doesn't mean you shouldn't be on the crossing. You can take as much time as you need to finish crossing. It feels way better from pedestrian perspective when compared to Polish system where green means you are safe, blinking green means you need to run for your life and red means that drivers can legally run you over and you are about die (they can't but that's how it feels).
Well, up to a certain extent at least. Behind the scenes, German traffic lights for example usually assume you continue walking at 1.2 m/s – if you start crossing at the last possible moment and are slower than that, you will still run into the case where crossing traffic will potentially get a green signal with you still on the road.
Sure, but as a pedestrian you have no way of telling if you took too long so the burden of not hitting you is firmly placed on the drivers.
In Poland it's bit more muddy in drivers' minds. If they hit a pedestrian who was still crossing the road while the light for him was red they think it's partially pedestrian's fault because he shouldn't be there.
- Forbidding on-street parking close to the junction, improving pedestrian visibility.
- Removing the sweeping curves and replacing them with sharp curves, which reduces the speed drivers can turn, and reduces the distance (thus time) pedestrians are in the road.
- Adjusting road priorities
But maybe it's a lost cause. What's described as a "walkable center" in the article seems to be a multi-lane traffic circle with some landscaping surrounded by excessively wide roads and lots of parked cars. I don't see a single pedestrian-only street.
I've always felt like that is the most unsafe place for a crossing. In my city, there are a few pedestrian crossings with lights recessed from intersections. The lights turn on only when someone bumps the crossing button (which isn't super common) and only 2 ways of traffic need to stop/watch out.
2) HAWK signals, which are pedestrian buttons affecting lights on pedestrian crossings away from intersections (usually on stroads) have been shown to be worse than nothing because drivers don't really notice them nor the pedestrians (in drivers heads "intersection" equals "watch out for cross traffic, everywhere else it's "go forward and pay attention to the car in front of you"), and pulls some pedestrians to an unwarranted sense of safety.
3) "which isn't super common" tells me that this a very car dependent place. There's a mid block pedestrian light on mission between 1st and 2nd in SF, and there's always someone waiting on it to change. Part of the reason it's there is because there's a straight pedestrian route that allows you to get from Market Street to the terminal.
The overhead red, though, works great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU
How it was fixed:
I've learned to look both ways and move quickly, but I don't have the confidence or assertiveness that I do at home.
The wheel and spokes of a road network should prioritize cars and most urbanists will concede that, but hubs have a wildly different set of constraints. Picking a one-size-fits-all cost to slowing down drivers completely ignores that reality to the detriment of pedestrians and drivers.
And what do the pedestrians get?
But wouldn't it make more sense to have crosswalks in between the intersections? ie: a few hundred feet away from where vehicles are intersecting with each other?
However the usual case is that pedestrians have to walk along the road because there's no separate independent pedestrian network, and in that case not providing crosswalks at intersections forces detours on everybody wanting to walk straight on ahead.
I used to encounter an infuriating version of this during my commute through SF Mission Bay. There were several lights that clearly were on a timer but wouldn't show the walk signal for pedestrians unless you had pressed the button before the current cycle. In practice this meant that I'd arrive at the intersection that had one or two cars waiting at a red light. This was clearly when I could have gotten a walk signal with no other changes required. However, without the signal I had no idea when it would switch and couldn't walk in front the waiting cars. So I typically ended up waiting till the light turned green for the cars, they drove off and I then crossed as a pedestrian while cars clearly had a green signal but they were gone. I would have had to wait another minute or so for the proper right of way to come around again. Totally bonkers outcome to have to wait for the cars to get a green signal. This would never happen the other way around.
We should all expect this kind of regressing in walking. Pedestrians and cyclists don't seem to understand how this always will be a car-by-default country due to lifestyle. Yes, there are several cities bucking the trend with exceptions, but those exceptions are either economically able to buck that car-first engineering trend and build massive bike and walking infra or they have exceptional transportation alternatives (train, bus, and subway).
Not everyone can drive. Most of those who can't drive also cannot afford a taxi or rideshare. Many of them also do not have friends or family who can get them where they need to go, and reliance on others is extremely demoralizing to independence.
That says nothing of the carbon cost in fuel, the microparticle cost in tire and brake dust, or other inflated pollutants.
The U.S.'s car-dominant infrastructure is a tragedy.
Cyclists and pedestrians should be considered two separate groups. Most biking infrastructure doesn't benefit me at all as a pedestrian (but it's okay, because the cyclists will still ride on sidewalk instead of the bike lane).
A lot of cyclists feel safer on the sidewalk because cars do not respect cyclists. It unfortunately does make it more dangerous for pedestrians.
> Cyclists and pedestrians should be considered two separate groups.
Yes, and they both rightfully expect safe infrastructure even if it is separate.
It's like the food chain, except cyclists don't seem to respect either pedestrians or motorists.
Not everyone can afford to live in an area of the city where they don't have to drive places, either.
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
In the meantime, until that's done and everybody lives where they can easily take public transit from their home to where they want to go, we'll continue to be in the situation I described, and will have to compromise with our fellow humans who have different locomotion options and choices.
All people are equal, regardless of transportation, so this intersection seems like a fair compromise which doesn't preference one person over another.
And besides it’s really depressing to be so isolated and only get around in a little metal box.
Walking is not merely some sort of hobby. It is transportation, a means of getting from one place to another -- often the most convenient and pleasant means. And transportation infrastructure certainly falls under the purview of local governments.
And I don't think pedestrian infrastructure advocates expect it to "fall from the sky". They expect it to be built by municipalities over time, just like everyone else.
At least here in the Czech Republic, moving goods isn't on anyone's radar when designing municipal infrastructure. Delivery vehicles need to physically fit, sure, but any economic benefit they bring will only be felt as a very slight n-th order effect by the municipality. Complaining residents, be they pro-pedestrian or pro-car, are immediate and much more likely to be heard.
This argument simply does not work for the majortiy of USA.
I thougt the US had a fairly standard "town council" arrangement, with the councilors having large autonomy and being beholden primarily to voters.
Some "lifestyle".
1. NEVER RIDE ON THE SIDEWALK. Cars on the street cannot see you due to other parked cars and WILL make right or left turn on you. Additionaly, cars coming out of parking lots won't see you on the sidewalk.
2. NEVER RIDE ON OPPOSITE SIDE. Ride on the same direction as cars, make yourself visible.
3. INDICATE ALL TURNS WITH HAND SIGNALS. Be predictable. Don't just turn or otherwise behave unpredictably. Indicate turns, make eye contact and then turn.
4. (Obvious) ACT LIKE A CAR AND DON'T RUN LIGHTS.
How about to avoid hitting people walking? It's not always safe for pedestrians to jump into the street to avoid a guy on a bike.
> 3. INDICATE ALL TURNS WITH HAND SIGNALS. Be predictable. Don't just turn or otherwise behave unpredictably. Indicate turns, make eye contact and then turn.
You should also explain to them that 99% of drivers will not understand the typical bike hand signals. Making eye contact will help a lot, but mostly it makes sure they're watching you.
https://cayimby.org/blog/sprawl-costs-the-u-s-1-trillion-eve... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmQomKCfYZY
- In NYC, for example, right turn on red is illegal within the five boroughs (you can always spot NJ drivers you don't know this or don't care). Right turning on red is incredibly dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, way more than traffic lights vs four-way stop signs;
- How often the light changes is a HUGE factor. I've read that there are some pedestrian crossings in LA at lights that take up to 10 minutes to change. Ridiculous. But in NYC, or at least Manhattan, light changes are quick. I suspect it's designed so a pedestrian never has to wait more than ~45 seconds;
- One way streets are better than two-way streets. There are less variables to be concerned with. Drivers may not like one-way streets. They're demonstrably better for traffic flow, pedestrians and cyclists however;
- Having an island in the middle of a two-way road is HUGELY helpful to both cyclists and pedestrians. The ability to cross halfway in relative safety makes an incredible difference;
- Having separate walk lights for each direction when there is an island is the absolute worst. This typically hugely increases the time to cross as they aren't coordinated;
- The speed limit matters. If the speed limit is under 25, cars rarely go too fast to be a problem. I've had Google Maps street directions that were basically "just make a run for it" across a highway with a speed limit of 45. There are places that say a road has a cycle path that is basically the hard shoulder on an interstate. Drivers will weave through those at 70+ to overtake 1 car. People have died that way;
- Traffic lights can decrease safety because drivers will speed up to make a yellow light. Usually I don't even have to look at a traffic light to tell when it turns yellow. I'll hear the engines revving up. I've nearly been killed this way when a driver accelerated to make what was a red light and they sped through a pedestrian crossing that had signalled pedestrians had right of way. This doesn't tend to happen at four-way stops.
- As a cyclist, I tend to find drivers give you deference at four-way stops but this may depend on the area and if it has a lot of cyclists and pedestrians. I actually prefer to give drivers the right-of-way when they have it. For example, a driver may stop at a four-way stop seeing me coming when they got there first and should just go. And I know I wasn't going fast enough to interfere with them anyway. This forces me to ride in front of them when they have right of way. I never like doing that.
So it's hard for me to judge this particular intersection without knowing the full context.
Please. This is the most drama-queen characterisation of a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing I've ever seen. In fact it's the first time I've seen anyone grinding their teeth at the injustice of a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing.
Meanwhile, car-centric environments contribute to air pollution and sedentary lifestyles. They limit public spaces, reducing community interactions and fostering loneliness, while also exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities by obstructing access to jobs and essential services for those unwilling or unable to burn cash on these inefficient, extravagant rolling idols of conspicuous consumption.
Their environmental impact, I shouldn't have to remind you, doesn't end with urban sprawl leading to inefficient land use and loss of green spaces, but includes, of course, plant-rocking CO2 emissions.
So, yeah, I think it's pretty debased that we featherless bypeds have to press a single goddamn button to tread a single square foot of earth in deference to cars.
The structure of the built environment which accommodates automobiles is hostile to human life. It has been—in the short run—convenient for the growth of a certain type of economy which is also hostile—in the long run—to human life.
As Ben Franklin might say, we have paid too dearly in blood, turf, and CO2 for this strip mall whistle.
If anything is worth the reverence of worship—and perhaps nothing, in your philosophy, is—few candidates can compete with the human life, community, and sustainable industry which a car-centric environment precludes.
Edit: Oh, except maybe the natural world it threatens.
I was trying to advocate for bike lanes and no-through traffic for a few streets near our small town's historic center a few months ago, and I'm sorry to say, to the community, I think I sounded like a weird European hippy. Even though I'm totally not a hippy and I'm American-born. I'm as capitalist as you can get. But I still think if the state is going to make design decisions on our streets, we should make decisions that make our neighborhoods better and ultimately more inviting and valuable.
The main opposition to what I was proposing was coming from neighborhoods that must commute from further beyond the city center to get to the highway that connects our town to the nearest major city. We have other, faster, wider roads to get to the highway from all parts of our town, but there are people that are adamant that during rush hour, they must be allowed to potentially commute through the historic downtown, and residential neighborhoods, to avoid traffic jams.
I was trying to explain that the bottlenecks are always the main streets that have the highway on-ramps, but to no avail. People like having many potential, fast routes to the highway, and they are deeply uncomfortable with you removing some routes even if they rarely use those routes themselves.
In other words, occasional car use is more important than daily, frequent pedestrian use.
And where were the pedestrians during this town-hall? For whatever reason there were none. Or if there were, they were silent. I was trying to understand why nobody else was speaking up when there are so many bikers, kids, parents with strollers, walkers with dogs, etc., using these streets that will be impacted by bad decision-making, and my conclusion is that young active people, and those with kids, have no time to go to town-halls. And the kinds of people that do go to town-halls are weirdos with design fetishes, like me, and extremely ornery and conservative people who see any change in their town as an assault on the AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE by perverted European-hippy Democratic Degenerates (into which category I have unfortunately been slotted it seems, though I'm embarrassingly capitalist and libertarian).
I would not suggest this will be the median experience in America. My town has a fair number of MAGA lawn signs, American flags, lifted trucks, Punisher stickers, etc., in addition to the tech community. So its a very specific kind of mix. I'm sure those of you in Berkeley or San Francisco will have much better luck.
My community has some of the strangest dynamics you have ever seen.
It sounds like you’ve possibly already headed down a similar line of reasoning (or possibly read it already) but I’d recommend you check out the book “Strong Towns”. It’s got a ton of overlap with the ideas you’ve brought up.
Police stopped enforcing red lights all over California after covid. And getting cameras installed is a Herculean task.
Muh privacy or something.
And biased humans deciding who to pull over is a lot more of a "dystopian nightmare" than cameras which eliminate those problems entirely https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2402547121
e: for those downvoting, please point me to a single case of a municipality selling red light violation data if this is such a real concern