4 ms·
If the pedestrian was about to get green (or blue) but a car was detected and the pedestrian was forced to wait then that's not fair is it? We already prioriti
by flukus 8y ago
If the pedestrian was about to get green (or blue) but a car was detected and the pedestrian was forced to wait then that's not fair is it?
We already prioritize cars enough, pedestrians usually have to press a button to trigger the crossing so they're always waiting but cars don't get punished for getting to the lights a second after the sequence starts.
- ankka 8y agoExcactly. Close to where I live there are a couple of funny examples: In one place the lights are red by default for everyone. Cars are detected from 100m or so away, so they barely need to slow down. Pedestrians need to press a button and usually wait for a while. At another crossing the lights are green by default for the bigger road. A sideroad has car-detection that is ofter rather quick. Pedestrians and cyclists need to press a button and usually wait for a long time. Just because you don't sit in a car it's ok to wait that much longer.
- jessriedel 8y agoA random pedestrian is just as likely to be helped by a light change as hurt by it. You provide an excellent example of motivated zero-sum reasoning though!