6 ms·

When I see one of these I reminded of Jan Gehl saying they are for reminding people who walk that they must keep asking permission to cross the road (cartoons a

When I see one of these I reminded of Jan Gehl saying they are for reminding people who walk that they must keep asking permission to cross the road (cartoons at http://reviewanew.com/2014/11/17/the-cartoon-case-for-walkability/ http://reviewanew.com/2014/11/17/the-cartoon-case-for-walkab... ). They might be attractive to some, but you soon tire of them. In the last five years the design has changed to remove the red light just above the button to acknowledge your request has been received, so now if it isn't working you'll never know. As Jan Gehl keeps saying to governments who invite him over here, you need to remove the buttons but that seems to fall on deaf ears. However we've been able to detect people who drive and even those on bicycles now with ease. Sigh.

ubernostrum 10y ago
people who walk that they must keep asking permission to cross the road Driving and walking are wildly disparate modes of transportation, and having them coexist in adjacent physical space and intersect each other inevitably requires some set of rules describing who will have priority and when. Many intersections in cities simply have a fixed repetitive cycle of granting priority to different modes in different directions each in turn automatically. Those which require explicit "requesting" of priority typically occur when traffic of a given mode or in a given direction is light enough, compared to other modes/directions, that the overall highest throughput occurs from explicit request. It's also not incredibly burdensome to use a button for this in the case of the pedestrian; detection mechanisms for motorized vehicles/bicycles on the road are there because a button would be unwieldy for those vehicles, not because designers of intersections want to force pedestrians into some type of ultra-lowest-class group. Indeed, the "high class" (in your view) automatic detection is often unreliable and leads to a far more conscious feeling of having to work to obtain priority, as vehicles shift forward and back hunting for the magic spot that will trigger the detector. And honestly, the number of buttons which are non-functional but simply exist to provide a placebo feeling of speeding up an otherwise fixed pattern in which everyone gets priority in turn makes it kind of a silly argument anyway.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > and having them coexist in adjacent physical space and intersect each other inevitably requires some set of rules describing who will have priority and when. Zebra crossings (where pedestrians get right of way unless it's dangerous for vehicles to stop) seem to work pretty well.
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Right of way is a deadly concept unless the driver knows of the concept, enforcement is actually done, and breaking this rule, at the very least, results in the driver losing their right to drive.
- arghbleargh 10y ago
  It makes sense to control pedestrian traffic in some intersections, but it just seems like they're not even trying to optimize pedestrian throughput. What makes the lack of feedback for crossing buttons worse is the fact that many of them are so conservative about letting you cross that you question if they are working. I encounter a lot that will refuse to let you cross if the light is already green, even if there is still plenty of time left. Unfortunately, lowering pedestrian accidents looks great, while saving pedestrian time is hard to measure.
  - jclulow 10y ago
    I would much rather be safer than a few seconds faster.
    - jdavis703 10y ago
      What if you miss the train and have to wait 15-30 minutes longer because of a red light?
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        Then you shoukd have left 5 minutes earlier.
venning 10y ago
It's likely a usage-related calculation. If an intersection is known to nearly always have cars but rarely pedestrians, a walk signal makes sense. In Washington, DC, most intersections do not have a traffic button, so pedestrians and cars are equally accounted for in the signaling. Only a handful of intersections, where pedestrians are less likely, have traffic buttons.
barkbro 10y ago
In many places (in Europe at least, I don't know much about the rest of the world), cars are prioritised on roads with larger amounts of traffic (pedestrians have to "ask premission to cross" or wait) and pedestrians are prioritised on roads with less traffic (they can just cross, and the cars have to stop). This is a reasonable compromise in my opinion. There are some places where you as a pedestrian feel like a second-class citizen though. Lack of pedestrian crossings, heavy traffic in city centers, police who think jaywalking when there is no traffic is a problem etc.
- goblin89 10y ago
  Seems about the same in South Korea and Taiwan, where on narrow alleys in residential areas cars are expected to move really slowly and peacefully co-exist with pedestrian traffic. What European countries do you have in mind?
thexa4 10y ago
In the Netherlands quite a few intersections have motion detectors for pedestrians just like there are induction loops to detect cars. The buttons are sometimes added because they seem to reduce the amount of accidents on that intersection.
riffic 10y ago
"Beg Buttons" is a favorite name for these devices.

ubernostrum 10y ago

people who walk that they must keep asking permission to cross the road Driving and walking are wildly disparate modes of transportation, and having them coexist in adjacent physical space and intersect each other inevitably requires some set of rules describing who will have priority and when. Many intersections in cities simply have a fixed repetitive cycle of granting priority to different modes in different directions each in turn automatically. Those which require explicit "requesting" of priority typically occur when traffic of a given mode or in a given direction is light enough, compared to other modes/directions, that the overall highest throughput occurs from explicit request. It's also not incredibly burdensome to use a button for this in the case of the pedestrian; detection mechanisms for motorized vehicles/bicycles on the road are there because a button would be unwieldy for those vehicles, not because designers of intersections want to force pedestrians into some type of ultra-lowest-class group. Indeed, the "high class" (in your view) automatic detection is often unreliable and leads to a far more conscious feeling of having to work to obtain priority, as vehicles shift forward and back hunting for the magic spot that will trigger the detector. And honestly, the number of buttons which are non-functional but simply exist to provide a placebo feeling of speeding up an otherwise fixed pattern in which everyone gets priority in turn makes it kind of a silly argument anyway.

DanBC 10y ago
> and having them coexist in adjacent physical space and intersect each other inevitably requires some set of rules describing who will have priority and when. Zebra crossings (where pedestrians get right of way unless it's dangerous for vehicles to stop) seem to work pretty well.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Right of way is a deadly concept unless the driver knows of the concept, enforcement is actually done, and breaking this rule, at the very least, results in the driver losing their right to drive.
arghbleargh 10y ago
It makes sense to control pedestrian traffic in some intersections, but it just seems like they're not even trying to optimize pedestrian throughput. What makes the lack of feedback for crossing buttons worse is the fact that many of them are so conservative about letting you cross that you question if they are working. I encounter a lot that will refuse to let you cross if the light is already green, even if there is still plenty of time left. Unfortunately, lowering pedestrian accidents looks great, while saving pedestrian time is hard to measure.
- jclulow 10y ago
  I would much rather be safer than a few seconds faster.
  - jdavis703 10y ago
    What if you miss the train and have to wait 15-30 minutes longer because of a red light?
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      Then you shoukd have left 5 minutes earlier.

venning 10y ago

It's likely a usage-related calculation. If an intersection is known to nearly always have cars but rarely pedestrians, a walk signal makes sense. In Washington, DC, most intersections do not have a traffic button, so pedestrians and cars are equally accounted for in the signaling. Only a handful of intersections, where pedestrians are less likely, have traffic buttons.

barkbro 10y ago

In many places (in Europe at least, I don't know much about the rest of the world), cars are prioritised on roads with larger amounts of traffic (pedestrians have to "ask premission to cross" or wait) and pedestrians are prioritised on roads with less traffic (they can just cross, and the cars have to stop). This is a reasonable compromise in my opinion. There are some places where you as a pedestrian feel like a second-class citizen though. Lack of pedestrian crossings, heavy traffic in city centers, police who think jaywalking when there is no traffic is a problem etc.

goblin89 10y ago
Seems about the same in South Korea and Taiwan, where on narrow alleys in residential areas cars are expected to move really slowly and peacefully co-exist with pedestrian traffic. What European countries do you have in mind?

thexa4 10y ago

In the Netherlands quite a few intersections have motion detectors for pedestrians just like there are induction loops to detect cars. The buttons are sometimes added because they seem to reduce the amount of accidents on that intersection.

riffic 10y ago

"Beg Buttons" is a favorite name for these devices.