4 ms·
Why don't they remove the inactive buttons?
by roadnottaken 16y ago
Why don't they remove the inactive buttons?
- alexgartrell 16y agoIt's probably more expensive than just snipping the wires.
- kgermino 16y agoWhy would they even bother to do that? Just deactivate the buttons in software.
- eli 16y agoI don't think those buttons were driven by anything we would consider "software."
- kgermino 16y agoDo you mind explaining? I can't tell if this is meant as a joke or a serious counter-argument. At any rate I assume there is some sort of firmware controlling the lights [edit: guess not, read juson's comment below], monitoring the buttons/ induction loops, etc. and the easiest way (to my mind) to disable to buttons would be to disable them in this software and have the system stop monitoring them. However if you have any insight into how the lights work that would be great.
- Judson 16y agohey kgermino, Sorry to butt into the convo, but I was a summer intern at a major "traffic light" operation (for lack of a better term) in the southeast (aka, they did all of the traffic lights and systems for the southeast USA). It will seem almost shocking to many here on HN, but the traffic control industry is lagging behind drastically. I believe the newer systems started going IP based just a few years ago, and (gasp) wireless networking of traffic lights is a really new thing. It has to do with the environment the system must handle and how "tamper-proof" it must be, which leads to hardware and software being waaayy behind the curve. The main point though, is that it would be very reasonable to think that some hardware, especially if installed before the 90s, wouldn't have "software" to just "turn off monitoring". Even the newer boxes aren't completely controlled by software, they have physical circuitry that operates as a "fall-back" to make sure that things like two green lights on adjacent roads can't be green at the same time, even if the software was hacked, had a bug, etc.
- kgermino 16y agoInteresting. For whatever reason it didn't even occur to me that traffic lights would still have a "hard-wired" circuit available to operate the lights. I'm a Computer/Electrical but I tend to think in terms of coding rather than being able to solve problems with circuits. But that's interesting and makes me think I should look into an internship/coop in that area. Thanks
- gecko 16y agoEven moreso than that, many of the lights in New York still run on genuine relays. You can easily hear them at many street corners in Manhattan, happily thunking away. (The New York Subway is also still powered almost exclusively by relays, even to do complex things like monitor train speed. It's both impressive and disturbing to see what they were able to accomplish a hundred years ago without modern computing hardware.)
- lepht 16y agoAny recommended links on where one could read more on the NY Subway systems you mention? I'm fascinated by pre-electronic computing, and this sounds like a particularly interesting example.
- jessriedel 16y agoIt's still insulting.
- kgermino 16y agoI'd be far more insulted if the city spent $2 million [Made up Number] it doesn't have removing buttons that did no harm to anyone.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoWhy not spend almost nothing to put some sort of notice on the button that it's no longer useful?
- kgermino 16y ago"almost nothing" would still equate to sever thousand dollars, probably over $100k. Not to mention future costs, a sticker would probably need to be replaced after a year at most, and a sign would cost significantly more. If you decide to just put them up and let them be there's a high likelihood of vandalism or damage that isn't attractive. All for signs that many people probably wouldn't notice. Again it just doesn't seem that letting people know the buttons do nothing is worth the money that it costs.
- jquery 16y agoThe buttons are almost certainly a disease vector. I'd hardly say they aren't causing harm.
- toast76 16y agoWell, because the point of the article(s) was that the user feels happier if they feel they have control. Besides which people would complain if they physically removed the buttons. Leaving them inactive means nobody is the wiser, and everyone gets on with their lives.
- jquery 16y agoIf someone pushes the button and the door doesn't close immediately I wouldn't say nobody is the wiser. More likely, someone just caught the common cold for no reason.
- daten 16y agoRemoving 2,500 or more buttons throughout the city would require a lot of man-hours, transporting, storing and disposing of the old buttons. There would also be wiring to remove or block off, cover plates to be made, distributed and installed. And hopefully some sort of communication to the entire population of the city including visitors to explain why the buttons are going away.
- zacharycohn 16y agoIt says in one of the linked articles it would cost roughly $400 per unit. That's $1,000,000 right there.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- radicaldreamer 16y agoBecause having a button there, even if it isn't active, reduces the number of people who will walk when they shouldn't, because they think that the light will change sooner because they pushed the button.
- enf 16y agoNo, it increases the number of jaywalkers. If you know that the light is on a timer and you will have your turn in 15 seconds, you have little reason not to wait the 15 seconds. But if you have to press a button for something, you deserve quick response to the button push, and if it doesn't come quickly, you give up in disgust and cross against the light.
- ryanelkins 16y agoEven when those buttons DO work they aren't instantaneous. You presume a world where pedestrians have almost no patience. A more likely scenario is that people start pushing the button more and more trying to get it to work before they "give up in disgust".