Most signaled intersections are unsafe for pedestrians, here's why

[CreekDog]

Signals force cars and pedestrians to occupy the crosswalks at the same time, and in fact, don't require cars to slow or stop at all.

Also, to be safe for pedestrians, the pedestrian needs to LOOK BEHIND them to be sure no car is coming, even with a walk signal.



The flaw is that pedestrians have the green/walk in the crosswalk while cars have the same, the only thing protecting the pedestrian is if the car sees them in time to stop, or sees them and attempts to stop at all prior to hitting them.

Intersections everywhere need to be updated to give a red signal to cars while pedestrians have a walk signal for the crosswalk. Signals need to segregate car access from pedestrian access.

This can be done through an all red that lets pedestrians cross in any direction all at once and the rest of the time is for cars to access the intersection. The benefit of this for cars is that instead of two cycles that let pedestrians cross, there is just one, for pedestrians the benefit is that they never have to cross more than once, and can do so diagonally, saving time and distance.

Safety can also be accomplished through red and green arrows for turning, giving a walk signal with a red turn signal followed by a don't walk signal and a green turn signal for right or left turns through a crosswalk.

As our intersections get busier with more cars and more people, there is an inevitable conflict, the only time for cars to legally make a turn is when pedestrians have a walk signal, which puts pressure on cars to cut between people, or be left blocking the intersection until the red signal is against them.

We can do this. These changes can be made at busy intersections and increasingly applied to areas based on the rates of pedestrian injuries and deaths.

CAR ATTEMPTING TO PASS THROUGH CROSSWALK WHILE PEDESTRIANS ARE WITHIN IT


CARS WITH GREEN SIGNAL CAN TURN THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WHILE HAS SIMULTANEOUS WALK SIGNAL

[TrogL]

1. They used to have one of those in London, Ontario

It was great

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Seems worse in places like NYC and WashDC.

Less so in California

[CreekDog]

7. but it IS a problem in California

what's the "less so"? because you haven't been hit?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. The drivers seem less aggressive/impatient here than they did on the east coast

Just my experience as a long term pedestrian and motorcycle rider. YMMV

[CreekDog]

11. that's anecdotal, the stats are what's important

and people die even where the driver's don't "seem" aggressive.

[kestrel91316]

14. It's beyond horrible in my part of CA. Pedestrians take their lives in their

hands every time they try to cross the street, signal or no.

Oh, and we already have red and green arrows, and walk/don't walk signals. It doesn't help. There is no stopping the drivers who are in a hurry and want pedestrians to get the hell out of their way.

[Kalidurga]

3. I just cross where ever I feel like it.

My kids go "mom" you don't own the streets. And I go "uh huh, yeah I do" and proceed to do my thing. Seriously, I am not going to cross the street if I see cars coming and I do look both ways twice.

[CreekDog]

4. come on, what about cars behind you when you have a walk signal?

how do you look for cars behind you and proceed forward and watch for cars in that direction?

this is WHY THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED. there's no way to cross safely in many situations.

but the solutions have already been created, they just need to be implemented in more places.

[Kalidurga]

5. I live in Minnesota maybe crossing is different here.

I actually do look in all directions. But, I am in a small suburb so, there are lots of safe places to cross. But, now that you mention it, it does seem safer to cross in the middle of the block rather than the intersection. Of course not living in a big city I can't say if this is feasible there or not or if it would be riskier legal wise.

[CreekDog]

6. well which is the simpler fix?

moving all the pedestrian crossings to mid-block, which are more inconvenient for walkers, whom we should be encouraging, or simply adjusting the signal light timing?

it's actually remarkably easy to adjust signal timing, it does help car traffic and increases pedestrian safety.

while i appreciate that people come up with their own solutions --the reason i told you about this particular one is that it works, it's been tried in many places and it increases safety.

what i don't understand are all the people that dismiss the ideas that have been developed by traffic engineers and safety advocates in favor of ideas that are harder to do, more expensive and less tested.

my suspicion is that people mostly drive, mostly don't walk and are at some level hostile to any idea that might appear to give a car a longer red signal or a do not turn signal any more than currently --even though my solution really doesn't.

[Kalidurga]

8. Oh sorry I really missed an opportunity...

let me correct that. I think your solution is great. And I don't want cross walks moved to the middle of the block, even though that does work for me. I realize it isn't for everyone. And even if it was a slight inconvenience to drivers I don't see that as a real issue. They should be happy they have cars and don't have to walk, bike, take the bus everywhere a bit of gratitude would be in order I think. And you are right we should encourage walking.

[CreekDog]

9. Thank you, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you

[Gormy Cuss]

12. Less of a problem in states where motorists are required to stop until pedestrians clear the lane.

California is a yield state and that's why drivers crawl up your backside while crossing in a crosswalk. It's one of the odd traffic rules that made me shake my head when I moved here (motorcycle lane splitting is another, but I digress.)

Other states require full stops until pedestrians clear the lane and some buffer, and in many cases until pedestrians have cleared ALL lanes in the same traffic direction. Here's an example from Washington state law:

(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

New Jersey changed its laws a few years ago from YIELD to STOP specifically because of its high rate of pedestrian injuries and deaths.

[CreekDog]

15. with all due respect, i'm writing this from San Francisco and it's a HUGE problem here

and no less of one than elsewhere.

the flawed design that seems to force cars to cross against the light through one or more crosswalks to make a turn is a big big problem.

as for the "law".

there's a simple answer for that.

it doesn't work, it's an abject failure for two reasons:

1) it allows the driver to proceed unless they visually identify the pedestrian --many simply don't see them
2) to actually follow the law as a driver is almost impossible in most busy intersections because while you are waiting to cross into the crosswalk and for pedestrians to clear it, where are you? in the other crosswalk, blocking that one and when the light changes pedestrians will have to navigate around you, provided you dont' hit them in the process.

i just want to say how f***** up a design it is and the laws notwithstanding, it's no less a problem in one state than another.

with all due respect, i deal with this daily in a city where these things are enforced somewhat and the laws are pedestrian friendly --yet, yet, it is a dangerous place to walk.

[Gormy Cuss]

17. With all due respect, it's far worse here in SF than in cities where the full stop is the law.

Last edited Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)

When full stops and lane clearances are the law, drivers behave differently. At simple painted crosswalks (as opposed to fully controlled ones) it's true that drivers must be aware of the potential for pedestrians. Most intersections with or without painted crosswalks are treated as crosswalks, so the properly cautious driver is ALWAYS looking for pedestrians. At fully controlled intersections, drivers tend to slow down rather than speed up on yellow lights to avoid being caught in the crosswalk when the lights change.

Cars wanting to execute a turn must wait until all pedestrian traffic is cleared before beginning the turn. Drivers caught between crosswalks are ripe for citation -IOW, the law views the driver as the problem, not the pedestrians.

BTW if traffic planners note that drivers can't execute turns because of high pedestrian volume, the usual solution is to add turn arrows to the traffic cycle.

As I wrote in your other thread, I'd like to see a return to all-direction stops when the pedestrian WALK cycle commences but I doubt that it will happen until urban traffic planning moves away from car-first thinking. I also think that right on red should be banned in congested areas. Much better to allow right on arrow instead.

[CreekDog]

18. i definitely agree with those ideas

1) all direction stops for cars
2) adding an arrow at the end of the cycle
3) stronger enforcement of existing laws
4) no rights on red (or lefts) in areas dense with pedestrians.

i don't think driver's are attentive enough, here in SF and in many other places, regardless of the controls in the intersection, with ONE exception. a red light seems to be something they at least slow down for and usually stop for.

if anything, that's my main issue.

if anything it's so driver's stop or slow down when the pedestrians are crossing or have a walk signal.

if they slow down enough to stop, a lot of problems are easily avoided. it's when they start turning without slowing much that if they suddenly see a pedestrian, it's too late.

there are all kinds of engineering changes that can deal with this.

[kestrel91316]

13. The fault lies entirely with negligent drivers.

I am sick and tired of having to walk defensively.

Yield to pedestrians with the right of way, asshats. And if you don't understand rights of way, surrender your licenses.

And when you have a red light, stay the fuck out of my crosswalk. It's part of the intersection you are legally obligated to stay out of.

[CreekDog]

16. yeah but the signaling needs to be fixed to separate them

yes, no quarter for driver's who violate, i'm all for that.

but the system that puts drivers in crosswalks with walk signals, the current system, is effed up.

there is a solution, i'm just shouting from the mountaintops to get these solutions implemented in more places. there are lots of intersections here in SF with these improvements and they didn't involve major changes or even cause traffic delays --we need more of these fixes.