Manning the catapults, or in them?
Way to miss the point. My point, as I stated it, is that so many pedestrians act like–and, in fact, believe–that no matter what, “The pedestrian always has the right of way.” That is a truism, urban legend, total poppycock that far too many people actually believe to be the law.
There’s a decided difference in someone being required to relinquish the right of way in an exceptional circumstance such as a pedestrian already jaywalking in the road and the pedestrian actually having the right of way. As I said, far too many pedestrians think they, by law, already have the right of way at all times. Besides being contrary to the actual law, it’s just plain stupid anyway given the laws of physics.
That’s only part of my complaint. The other is the suicidal morons who, thinking they already have an automatic right of way by law just because they’re pedestrians walking out right in front of a moving vehicle going the speed limit.
I’m quite familiar with the so-called Tri-State Area (DC, Maryland, Virginia) and I know exactly what you mean. On one hand is my complaint about the suicidal/moronic/ill-trained pedestrians and on the other hand is my complaint about drivers who think the best, nay the only way to drive in the Tri-State Area (or anywhere else, for that matter) is to drive like they’re living out Fritz Leiber’s X Marks the Ped-walk.
Maybe the problem is semantic in nature. If we stop calling the people pedestrians and only refer to them as [del]moving targets[/del] foot traffic, both the foot traffic and the vehicular traffic will get out of the mind set of–and I quote the aforementioned Science Fiction story here–of there only being two kinds of pedestrian: the Quick and the Dead.
You can start by stop saying that anyone ever has the right of way. You don’t. You yield it. I think the semantics might put people in a better mindset.
It’s always a pleasure to see a right winger throwing his contempt for government into any serious discussion about how to fix a public problem.
That HAWK signal appears to be about as much as can be done to get peds across between intersections. Perhaps augmenting it with signs for motorists as they approach it “CAUTION PED CROSSING AHEAD” “YIELD TO PEDS” “STOP ON SIGNAL FOR PEDS”, something like that. Plus some PSAs to educate the public when they encounter these new signals.
Get Werner Herzog to film a short, free documentary showing footage of vehicle=on-pedestrian accidents and their aftermath. Bonus points for lots of dashcam footage from the drivers’ POV in addition to the typical security and traffic cam footage from afar.
Make it mandatory viewing to graduate all schools and to get a drivers license.
Why don’t they just have regular looking traffic lights, instead of strange and unusual looking traffic lights?
Cars do stop for traffic lights don’t they? don’t they?
Serious discussion of a public problem?
These people are so dumb they walk out in traffic and get killed.
How do we fix this?
Let Darwin sort it out?
Leave the bodies there as a visible warning?
Put up signs that say “Hey, don’t walk out in traffic!”?
What would you consider a serious solution to this ridiculous problem?
I would say that peds getting killed is a serious problem. This signal appears to have some promise, but it also seems as though driver unfamiliarity with it may have contributed to the accident. The solution I proposed was to augment the signal with signs and PSAs. This is much better than throwing a right wing tantrum and making a reflexive anti-government snark.
I think the intent of the flashing yellow lights is that if the pedestrian has already cleared the crosswalk, drivers are free to proceed, even if the lights are still flashing (they typically flash for a good 20 seconds after being triggered). If we have conventional red-yellow-green traffic lights, then drivers would be obligated to remain stopped until the red light turns green. IOW, it’s a compromise that attempts to minimize the impediment to vehicle traffic.
Most of the time. I suspect compliance rates for real traffic lights are substantially higher than they are for the HAWK signals, but it’s still not 100%; pedestrians do get struck/killed from time to time at road intersections.
This. And cameras.
Does anyone remember when they tried that with people running red lights? What ever happened to those?
How can you yield something you never possessed?
Anyways, overhead/underroad pathways seem to be the best option. Yeah, sure, they cost money, but surely the cost doesn’t exceed the possible loss of public money by taking away half a life of taxpaying. Either that or draconian road penalties enforced with excessive surveillance.
In Nevada it has been the law for as long as I can remember that pedestrians have the right-of-way and you are required to stop. We have a similar light about 1/4 mile from where I live and everyone here knows what it means.
I was in Michigan last year and I found that your signals there are harder to see (esp in the suburbs west of Detroit)… the lights are just hanging from wires with no poles, making them harder to see than a standard pole-support/light structure.
Hell, if I knew the answer to that, my job would be a lot simpler.
HAWKs aren’t bad from what I’ve read, though we’ve only just put them in so it’ll be a while before we see if they do anything. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) also show promise.
There’s a number of things civil engineers are playing with to try and reduce pedestrian collisions. Shortening the crossing distance is important as you reduce exposure times. You do that through median refuge islands or curb bulb outs. Narrowing the road can also reduce prevailing speeds. Also, yield lines are becoming more popular. They’re a row of triangles set in advance of a crosswalk, indicating where vehicles need to stop. By setting the stop line back from the intersection, you increase visibility of a pedestrian who may be hidden by another lane of traffic.
It’s not just the driver, though. As you point out, part of the problem is pedestrians don’t watch traffic when they cross (I came across a study once that found people who jaywalked were less likely to be struck crossing the street, as they’re paying more attention to traffic). When you cross the street, you have to keep an eye on approaching vehicles and be prepared for them to run the crossing. You can’t assume they’ll stop. Is the driver looking at you? Is the vehicle slowing? Is the nose of the car dipping? When the car in my lane stops, I’ll slow and check that second lane for another car before I step out into the next lane. I nearly got clipped once by a guy trying to get the last of his Big Gulp out of the bottom of the glass.
Here lies Charles Day.
He tried to claim his right of way.
His mind was set,
his will was strong.
But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.
Bollards.
- Got to have it to yield it.
- Of course, there’s that whole bit with the traffic laws/ordinances/regulations/codes being written with the very words “has the right of way” that puts the kibosh on your assertion.
But I’m not against your idea. Perhaps it’d be cool if the laws/etc. were written as “the operator of the vehicular traffic shall not assert right-of-way over foot traffic in such-and-such situations.”
I’m also not sure I’m against the Darwin Awards method for cutting down on stupid pedestrians.
That does’t actually appear to be the case (quoting state law):
See above the two instances where posters have mentioned that one must have something before one can yield it.
Lessons at school on how to cross roads, and adverts about them. We used to have them in the UK - Darth Vader was the Green Cross Code Man first. In recent years there have been some quite graphic adverts with teenagers dying while crossing the road.
This still applies to pedestrian crossings with markings, because you have to teach people that drivers sometimes get it wrong and being on a pedestrian crossing is not a miracle cure for road injuries.
Underpasses and bridges are often difficult or impossible for people with mobility problems and underpasses are fucking scary at night. In road planning, they’re a last resort, not a first option. However, raising the crosswalk slightly might help, both as a visual signal to drivers (and making it easier for drivers in tall cars like many SUVs to even see shorter pedestrians) and because it would force them to slow down anyway.
I saw a programme on the BBC recently talking about intelligent traffic lights that could tell if the person coming up was a pedestrian, bike or car, and prioritised accordingly. Those could help.
Include flashing yellow lights on overhead warning signs in advance of the crossings.
I’m really confused so hopefully someone can sort it out for me.
I thought that in the OP the issue was that pedestrians were being hit despite being in a marked crosswalk with traffic control lights directing the cars to stop but a lot of the posters are discussing pedestrians saying “Fuck it.” and darting into traffic to cross the street with no controls.
Which scenerio are we discussing?