Comment by dleslie

Comment by dleslie 2 months ago

25 replies

> Why don’t lights ever sit idle with the pedestrian crossing on and the cars must wait?

The author knows the answer as well as most readers do: because the intersection is being designed with cars in mind, not human beings.

nmeofthestate 2 months ago

Usually a crossing will instantly switch when the pedestrian button is pressed, if enough time has passed since the last "walk" cycle. Having a stage where walk is enabled when there's no pedestrians around wouldn't much help pedestrians, and would introduce inefficiency in throughput. And obviously, drivers can't press a button, so it makes more sense for controls to be accessible to the pedestrians.

  • dr_kretyn 2 months ago

    Instantly? You're definitely not in North America. Many intersections around me, if you missed pressing the crossing button before parallel street had a green light, you missed your opportunity to walk for the next minute.

  • dleslie 2 months ago

    > Having a stage where walk is enabled when there's no pedestrians around wouldn't much help pedestrians, and would introduce inefficiency in throughput

    It forces drivers to reduce speed and come to a full stop; dramatically decreasing the likelihood of collisions with pedestrians they did not notice.

crackercrews 2 months ago

> designed with cars in mind, not human beings

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!

  • dleslie 2 months ago

    If the designers were truly considering the well-being of the occupants of the vehicles then they would be designing cities to minimize the time spent in vehicles; which means more than saving a few seconds at a stop light, it means getting them out of their cars entirely.

    • crackercrews 2 months ago

      That might fly in temperate parts of California, but it sure doesn't work in places with less pedestrian-friendly weather.

      • jplrssn 2 months ago

        There are plenty of examples of walkable neighbourhoods in places with cold and/or wet weather.

      • redman25 2 months ago

        Minneapolis, Chicago, a lot of less temperate cities have protected walking tunnels, either underground or protected by buildings.

      • roguecoder 2 months ago

        It is working great in New York City: traffic is down 11-60% with just a $9 fee.

        • crackercrews 2 months ago

          Do you think people who previously drove into NYC are now walking from NJ? Or are they working remote? The photos of carless streets I've seen don't seem to be packed with pedestrians.

    • philwelch 2 months ago

      Forcing people into a 19th century standard of living is not good for their well being.

asmor 2 months ago

I'm about 99% sure that was a rhetorical question so you can ask yourself why we put cars before people.

  • criddell 2 months ago

    People are in cars too.

    • leonheld 2 months ago

      I think we should give priority to the people who are no inside multi-ton metal boxes, pollute less, can get on average healthier due to walking etc etc... At least inside our cities.

[removed] 2 months ago
[deleted]
roguecoder 2 months ago

Drivers are on average richer than pedestrians.

In America, with our current wealth disparity, that leaves their interests wildly over-represented in policy and infrastructure.

  • HDThoreaun 2 months ago

    More like voters are on average more likely to be drivers than pedestrians, so politicians favor drivers. In my experience this is even more true for poor voters as they generally can’t afford to live in walkable areas.