11 ms·

I grew used to not pressing these during the pandemic, so for a while after this change I often stood there for ages before remembering I now have to push the b

by roxgib 4y ago

I grew used to not pressing these during the pandemic, so for a while after this change I often stood there for ages before remembering I now have to push the button. Thankfully I've adjusted now. The comment about the crossing times being too short is spot on, often they are too short for me as a healthy young person. Trying to cross when you can't move as quickly must be a total nightmare. Sydney has a few crossings where instead of particular directions being open to pedestrians, the whole crossing goes green for pedestrians and red for cars. This seems more efficient to me, and safer since cars aren't moving at all when you cross - often you have to share the space with cars turning left when you cross. I wish we had more of these.

hedora 4y ago
The SF Bay Area has the opposite problem with crossing times. I regularly watch a person with a 3 year old, or with a walker cross the street in half the allotted time. On top of that, in some areas, all left turns are always protected, leading to 4 cycle crossing schedules (assuming no pedestrians). 4-5 minute traffic light cycles (a given light switching from red to green takes 4 minutes) are pretty common now. I think the idea is that they want to intentionally cause traffic jams to encourage people not to commute (public transit is spotty, and not improving). You could claim that the 60 seconds per green maximizes throughput, but if you look at intersection utilization during rush hour backups (what percentage of the time is at least one car moving through the crossing?), you'll see that it's often well under 50%. Really, they should have a "I need extra time to cross the road" button, and just time the automatic walk cycle for a fit 50 year old.
- closeparen 4y ago
  Pedestrian crossing isn’t an exceptional case for which we should make the minimum allowance. Pedestrians are just as deserving as drivers (if not more!) of sometimes getting to go through on a green they didn’t explicitly wait for or request.
  - hedora 4y ago
    OK, does that mean we should shut down the entire intersection for 30 seconds after a 1 percentile pedestrian would be done crossing? Should we do that for every single cycle, even when no pedestrians are present? Many cities in this area do exactly that. I once had a 35 minute "normal route" commute that only took 15 minutes once I figured out how to do it in a third more distance, but by only making right turns at traffic lights.
    - roxgib 4y ago
      The current crossing times affect significantly more that 1% of pedestrians. I don't know what the optimal times would be for each intersection, but expecting pedestrians to sprint across so the cars can move a bit faster isn't reasonable.
    - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
      > OK, does that mean we should shut down the entire intersection for 30 seconds after a 1 percentile pedestrian would be done crossing? The problem with treating pedestrians as "1 percentile" means that you'll never increase pedestrian modeshare. Design an infrastructure for 1 percentile pedestrian usage, then the moment someone who absolutely doesn't have to walk (read: anyone who isn't homeless/poor/otherwise optionless) goes there, they'll be dissuaded. The Netherlands solves this with automatic priority signals where pedestrians and cyclists (each have their own dedicated ROW btw) get priority if they're there, but cars get automatic green lights if there aren't pedestrians or cyclists. This requires a lot more money than most US cities can afford because US cities are so auto oriented that per capita they have much more traffic infrastructure than the Netherlands. > Many cities in this area do exactly that. I once had a 35 minute "normal route" commute that only took 15 minutes once I figured out how to do it in a third more distance, but by only making right turns at traffic lights. Think about how a pedestrian feels. The extra light cycle times save lives and make walking a more attractive option. How many times have you been talking with a friend or partner in the car? If a pedestrian light cycle is efficiency focused, pedestrians can't have that experience when crossing (even though drivers definitely can.) What happens if you're walking your kid or your dog, and they decide to bolt the other way? The pedestrian experience should be a lot more than a bare minimum timed interval and a painted strip. In many European and Asian countries, pedestrians have dedicated signaling and priority. Instead of constantly seeing this as a battle between your time and the pedestrian, think of other factors. Every pedestrian crossing the intersection is a person not driving, not creating congestion in the auto system, not putting wear and tear on the street you're driving on (so lower paving-oriented taxes), not emitting greenhouse gases if they're not driving electric, not releasing brake dust in the air. The built infrastructure is a balance of many goals. You are but one of many users and your time is not the highest priority since you aren't the only one paying for the infrastructure.
- michael1999 4y ago
  Pedestrians might say the same back. You underestimate how much long light cycles delay someone walking to work. A person walking downtown might easily dwell 30% at lights when the blocks are short. We're all in each other's way.
  - hedora 4y ago
    As a pedestrian and bicyclist, I find it equally infuriating. Waiting 5 minutes for the walk light to turn on sucks too.
- Fricken 4y ago
  My city has the scrambles and the insanely long light cycles, they were installed about 4 years ago. It has really helped to scare drivers out of city centre. Cyclists and pedestrians have also learned to avoid downtown because waiting 4 minutes for the light to change is excruciating no matter what mode of transport you're using. I don't drive, but now I skirt around the outside of downtown when cycling because avoiding those intersections saves me ~10 minutes. In Vancouver the light cycles are super fast, and it keeps things moving for everyone. They have the right idea, and there isn't much room for slack, you gotta be quick.
  - hedora 4y ago
    These lights aren't in city centers. They are at freeway exits, boulevards between downtown areas, etc. Downtown areas in the cities I am referring to prefer stop signs.
  - roxgib 4y ago
    Here in Sydney most cyclists just ride on the sidewalk, despite it being illegal. How does your city keep them on the road? I do think in pedestrian heavy areas (like the city centre) the cars may just have to wait a bit longer, these areas usually have pretty good public transport links anyway.
    - antihero 4y ago
      Segregated bike lanes. I am happy cycling on most roads but sometimes it’s hairy and dark and cars are as being particularly aggressive and fast so I’ll pop on the pavement until it’s a calmer road. With cycle lanes it’s much nicer, there’s a new one between Greenwich and Tower Bridge just opened and it’s so bloody nice!
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  Why are we giving advantage to the form of transport requiring external power again? So we can have even more wasteful urban design incentives? Maybe we should pay people to use gas lol. The idea that the "SF Bay Area" has a single way to design light cycle times is ridiculous. Each intersection is governed by a local city department that has its own guidelines around light placement, times, signal priority, signal synchronization, speed tables, etc. There's also added nuance around whether a particular road at the intersection is deemed a collector or an arterial. It's a fascinatingly complex topic but gesturing at the "SF Bay Area" and making a conclusion is senseless. Moreover most Bay Area cities are playing along to some level (some areas more than others) to Vision Zero plans which very much prioritize pedestrians over drivers.
  - hedora 4y ago
    As implemented, Vision Zero is just extremist NIMBY-ism. They aren't improving transit (and the bike lane "upgrades" are clearly designed for traffic quiescence, not cyclist safety). As you say, it only prioritizes pedestrians, which basically means that the 99% of the population that doesn't live less than 5 blocks from work is screwed.
    - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
      > As you say, it only prioritizes pedestrians, which basically means that the 99% of the population that doesn't live less than 5 blocks from work is screwed. I'm sorry that you don't walk or bike much but others do. Not everyone is a highly compensated, young knowledge worker. Some folks are students, who have more time than money. Some are active people who value active commutes. Some like to walk for recreation. Older folks may need to walk for their health. Most of these improvements are created based on community surveys. Even Fremont which is a very auto-oriented suburb, and has even called out auto-orientation in its planning documents, has run surveys that shows that there's latent demand to bike and walk if infrastructure exists. The number one reason Fremont residents cites that they don't walk or ride bikes is that they feel the streets are unsafe to bike or walk in. That you prioritize your speed over the demands of others is of no matter since you aren't the only one paying for the infrastructure.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I have no opinion on this phenomenon outside SF, but in the city proper, as a pedestrian, I love it. I know that when I'm walking, I'll rarely have to wait more than 45 seconds or so at nearly any intersection. It's also great when I'm out for a run, as stop-and-go would be crappy for my fitness regimen. I frankly don't give a damn about car traffic; cities are for people, not cars. And I say this as someone who owns a car and drives it often enough. (Again, outside the city, sure, ok, things are different, and you really need a car to get around. That itself is another city-planning failure, but that's a separate issue.)
xdfgh1112 4y ago
Singapore has a card given to people with mobility problems that can be swiped at a traffic stop. It makes the lights stay green for longer.
- Animats 4y ago
  Now there's an idea. If you swipe a credit card, you get a walk signal sooner.
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  That's a nice touch. In general, when I visit Singapore, I feel like a second class citizen in comparison to cars. A lot of long waits at crossings, or unnecessary private cars in crowded areas. From the design of the city (and society), it looks intentional.
  - xdfgh1112 4y ago
    The public transport is so good that I never felt that way, especially since car owners have to pay obscene fees for a license to drive. But definitely it's not a good walking city. The heat doesn't help.
GrifMD 4y ago
"Sydney has a few crossings where instead of particular directions being open to pedestrians, the whole crossing goes green for pedestrians and red for cars. This seems more efficient to me, and safer since cars aren't moving at all when you cross - often you have to share the space with cars turning left when you cross. I wish we had more of these." --- These are called "pedestrian scrambles", and I like them a lot more too. I do know there's a few in the Sydney CBD, but I don't recall them being marked particularly well that they are a scramble. The ones in Oakland (picture below) are very well demarcated, and a study found them to reduce vehicle-pedestrian conflict though did increase the amount of people crossing parallel to traffic when the signals indicated "don't walk". Picture: https://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/crossings_6a.jpg https://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/crossings... Study: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fh5q4dk https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fh5q4dk
- jakecopp 4y ago
  One of the side effect issues of scrambles is to obtain the same throughput of cars you have to may have to increase the delay in between pedestrian cycles. When only allowing pedestrians on some axis you can allow cars to run in parallel. One argument I saw somewhere (I can't remember where) is that if there are enough people to make a scramble worthwhile (and you don't care about car throughput) - you probably shouldn't have any cars there at all! This comment covers some of the downsides: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/27/a-pedestrian-scramble-can-make-an-intersection-safer#comment-4223276181 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/27/a-pedestrian-...
  - mjevans 4y ago
    If there are enough for a scramble, then there are probably enough to build a pedestrian layer _above_ the car layer entirely. Isolating large vehicles from fragile human beings is the best engineering solution.
    - jakecopp 4y ago
      > there are probably enough to build a pedestrian layer _above_ the car layer entirely. Isolating large vehicles from fragile human beings is the best engineering As far as I can tell, the general consensus among urban planners is that building pedestrian overpasses/Skyways/skywalks is a _really bad idea_. They suck pedestrian life away from the ground plane and surrender it to cars, which has all sorts of second order effects. The ground level becomes darker, and more dangerous with less "eyes on the street". Car focused transport planners are more bold to increase traffic volume (with increases in pollution/crashes/noise). Businesses on the street struggle. > Isolating large vehicles from fragile human beings is the best engineering solution. It may be the best _engineering_ solution (don't get me wrong, I love some Brutalism and textured concrete), but it's usually a horrible outcome for street life. The best solution for a healthy, livable street is to build large spaces for pedestrians and cyclists, reduce car speeds to 30kph/20mph, or remove cars altogether.
quickthrower2 4y ago
Chatswood (a busy Sydney suburb) has one too
ehnto 4y ago
In regards to ped/car conflict, it would be nice to at least have red, yellow, green instead of red, flashing red, green. I often get irate cars gesturing as if I were crossing on a red when actually they glanced at the flashing red. That just means don't start walking, it is the yellow of ped lights and it lasts a while. The flashing red usually starts pretty soon after the green, you usually can't cross entirely on a green. It doesn't mean the person was slow or jumped the light. Some other nitpicks: As a car, you have to wait until everyone is finished crossing. You can't just sneak through the middle, or cut just behind someone. Unrelated to lights but tangential, you have to give way to all existing traffic when entering a road. That means if you take a turn, and someone is crossing the road ahead of you, you have to wait. They couldn't know you were about to barell around the corner, and they are under no obligation to hurry out of your way. No stress, you will be gone in seconds.
- registeredcorn 4y ago
  If I had to guess, they probably don't want red/yellow/green for pedestrian walkways because it might confuse drivers into thinking that light is for them. I do think an alternative would probably be preferable, I'm just not sure what it would look like.
  - rahimnathwani 4y ago
    In the UK, flashing green man means "don't start crossing". Where I live in the US, red countdown timer means "don't start crossing".
    - maria2 4y ago
      The red countdown timer means run in the US.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        No, they are correct, it means "don't start crossing." Not everyone can run, eg, people in wheelchairs or people who need walkers, or able bodied people carrying lots of groceries. Running as a pedestrian is very dangerous. It creates confusion for drivers, it makes you more difficult to see, and it makes it more difficult for you to see if you're running in front of a moving car.
kmlx 4y ago
> This seems more efficient to me, and safer since cars aren't moving at all when you cross - often you have to share the space with cars turning left when you cross. one of the features i loved moving to London: there's no "cars turning AND pedestrians crossing the street". yes, it does add a bit to congestion, but makes things more safe when walking, as well as when driving (and yes, i do both in London). and it's still weird travelling thru places that don't have this.
- pharmakom 4y ago
  Net effect on congestion may well be positive if it encourages more walking.
  - iggldiggl 4y ago
    Though it could equally mean longer waiting times for pedestrians, too, due to longer traffic lights cycle lengths…
iso1631 4y ago
Why not just push them with your elbow? Or the end of a key?
grishka 4y ago
St Petersburg has very few crossings that have traffic light buttons. When there is a button, it usually comes with a huge bright yellow sign with an arrow pointing at it. So for me, when I visit other countries, it's sometimes very non obvious that there is a button in the first place — I'm just not used to them being a thing. So I'd stand there clueless, waiting for the light to change, only to realize a minute later that there might be a button that I have to press.

by roxgib 4y ago

hedora 4y ago

The SF Bay Area has the opposite problem with crossing times. I regularly watch a person with a 3 year old, or with a walker cross the street in half the allotted time. On top of that, in some areas, all left turns are always protected, leading to 4 cycle crossing schedules (assuming no pedestrians). 4-5 minute traffic light cycles (a given light switching from red to green takes 4 minutes) are pretty common now. I think the idea is that they want to intentionally cause traffic jams to encourage people not to commute (public transit is spotty, and not improving). You could claim that the 60 seconds per green maximizes throughput, but if you look at intersection utilization during rush hour backups (what percentage of the time is at least one car moving through the crossing?), you'll see that it's often well under 50%. Really, they should have a "I need extra time to cross the road" button, and just time the automatic walk cycle for a fit 50 year old.

closeparen 4y ago
Pedestrian crossing isn’t an exceptional case for which we should make the minimum allowance. Pedestrians are just as deserving as drivers (if not more!) of sometimes getting to go through on a green they didn’t explicitly wait for or request.
- hedora 4y ago
  OK, does that mean we should shut down the entire intersection for 30 seconds after a 1 percentile pedestrian would be done crossing? Should we do that for every single cycle, even when no pedestrians are present? Many cities in this area do exactly that. I once had a 35 minute "normal route" commute that only took 15 minutes once I figured out how to do it in a third more distance, but by only making right turns at traffic lights.
  - roxgib 4y ago
    The current crossing times affect significantly more that 1% of pedestrians. I don't know what the optimal times would be for each intersection, but expecting pedestrians to sprint across so the cars can move a bit faster isn't reasonable.
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    > OK, does that mean we should shut down the entire intersection for 30 seconds after a 1 percentile pedestrian would be done crossing? The problem with treating pedestrians as "1 percentile" means that you'll never increase pedestrian modeshare. Design an infrastructure for 1 percentile pedestrian usage, then the moment someone who absolutely doesn't have to walk (read: anyone who isn't homeless/poor/otherwise optionless) goes there, they'll be dissuaded. The Netherlands solves this with automatic priority signals where pedestrians and cyclists (each have their own dedicated ROW btw) get priority if they're there, but cars get automatic green lights if there aren't pedestrians or cyclists. This requires a lot more money than most US cities can afford because US cities are so auto oriented that per capita they have much more traffic infrastructure than the Netherlands. > Many cities in this area do exactly that. I once had a 35 minute "normal route" commute that only took 15 minutes once I figured out how to do it in a third more distance, but by only making right turns at traffic lights. Think about how a pedestrian feels. The extra light cycle times save lives and make walking a more attractive option. How many times have you been talking with a friend or partner in the car? If a pedestrian light cycle is efficiency focused, pedestrians can't have that experience when crossing (even though drivers definitely can.) What happens if you're walking your kid or your dog, and they decide to bolt the other way? The pedestrian experience should be a lot more than a bare minimum timed interval and a painted strip. In many European and Asian countries, pedestrians have dedicated signaling and priority. Instead of constantly seeing this as a battle between your time and the pedestrian, think of other factors. Every pedestrian crossing the intersection is a person not driving, not creating congestion in the auto system, not putting wear and tear on the street you're driving on (so lower paving-oriented taxes), not emitting greenhouse gases if they're not driving electric, not releasing brake dust in the air. The built infrastructure is a balance of many goals. You are but one of many users and your time is not the highest priority since you aren't the only one paying for the infrastructure.
michael1999 4y ago
Pedestrians might say the same back. You underestimate how much long light cycles delay someone walking to work. A person walking downtown might easily dwell 30% at lights when the blocks are short. We're all in each other's way.
- hedora 4y ago
  As a pedestrian and bicyclist, I find it equally infuriating. Waiting 5 minutes for the walk light to turn on sucks too.
Fricken 4y ago
My city has the scrambles and the insanely long light cycles, they were installed about 4 years ago. It has really helped to scare drivers out of city centre. Cyclists and pedestrians have also learned to avoid downtown because waiting 4 minutes for the light to change is excruciating no matter what mode of transport you're using. I don't drive, but now I skirt around the outside of downtown when cycling because avoiding those intersections saves me ~10 minutes. In Vancouver the light cycles are super fast, and it keeps things moving for everyone. They have the right idea, and there isn't much room for slack, you gotta be quick.
- hedora 4y ago
  These lights aren't in city centers. They are at freeway exits, boulevards between downtown areas, etc. Downtown areas in the cities I am referring to prefer stop signs.
- roxgib 4y ago
  Here in Sydney most cyclists just ride on the sidewalk, despite it being illegal. How does your city keep them on the road? I do think in pedestrian heavy areas (like the city centre) the cars may just have to wait a bit longer, these areas usually have pretty good public transport links anyway.
  - antihero 4y ago
    Segregated bike lanes. I am happy cycling on most roads but sometimes it’s hairy and dark and cars are as being particularly aggressive and fast so I’ll pop on the pavement until it’s a calmer road. With cycle lanes it’s much nicer, there’s a new one between Greenwich and Tower Bridge just opened and it’s so bloody nice!
Karrot_Kream 4y ago
Why are we giving advantage to the form of transport requiring external power again? So we can have even more wasteful urban design incentives? Maybe we should pay people to use gas lol. The idea that the "SF Bay Area" has a single way to design light cycle times is ridiculous. Each intersection is governed by a local city department that has its own guidelines around light placement, times, signal priority, signal synchronization, speed tables, etc. There's also added nuance around whether a particular road at the intersection is deemed a collector or an arterial. It's a fascinatingly complex topic but gesturing at the "SF Bay Area" and making a conclusion is senseless. Moreover most Bay Area cities are playing along to some level (some areas more than others) to Vision Zero plans which very much prioritize pedestrians over drivers.
- hedora 4y ago
  As implemented, Vision Zero is just extremist NIMBY-ism. They aren't improving transit (and the bike lane "upgrades" are clearly designed for traffic quiescence, not cyclist safety). As you say, it only prioritizes pedestrians, which basically means that the 99% of the population that doesn't live less than 5 blocks from work is screwed.
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    > As you say, it only prioritizes pedestrians, which basically means that the 99% of the population that doesn't live less than 5 blocks from work is screwed. I'm sorry that you don't walk or bike much but others do. Not everyone is a highly compensated, young knowledge worker. Some folks are students, who have more time than money. Some are active people who value active commutes. Some like to walk for recreation. Older folks may need to walk for their health. Most of these improvements are created based on community surveys. Even Fremont which is a very auto-oriented suburb, and has even called out auto-orientation in its planning documents, has run surveys that shows that there's latent demand to bike and walk if infrastructure exists. The number one reason Fremont residents cites that they don't walk or ride bikes is that they feel the streets are unsafe to bike or walk in. That you prioritize your speed over the demands of others is of no matter since you aren't the only one paying for the infrastructure.
kelnos 4y ago
I have no opinion on this phenomenon outside SF, but in the city proper, as a pedestrian, I love it. I know that when I'm walking, I'll rarely have to wait more than 45 seconds or so at nearly any intersection. It's also great when I'm out for a run, as stop-and-go would be crappy for my fitness regimen. I frankly don't give a damn about car traffic; cities are for people, not cars. And I say this as someone who owns a car and drives it often enough. (Again, outside the city, sure, ok, things are different, and you really need a car to get around. That itself is another city-planning failure, but that's a separate issue.)

xdfgh1112 4y ago

Singapore has a card given to people with mobility problems that can be swiped at a traffic stop. It makes the lights stay green for longer.

Animats 4y ago
Now there's an idea. If you swipe a credit card, you get a walk signal sooner.
throwaway2037 4y ago
That's a nice touch. In general, when I visit Singapore, I feel like a second class citizen in comparison to cars. A lot of long waits at crossings, or unnecessary private cars in crowded areas. From the design of the city (and society), it looks intentional.
- xdfgh1112 4y ago
  The public transport is so good that I never felt that way, especially since car owners have to pay obscene fees for a license to drive. But definitely it's not a good walking city. The heat doesn't help.

GrifMD 4y ago

"Sydney has a few crossings where instead of particular directions being open to pedestrians, the whole crossing goes green for pedestrians and red for cars. This seems more efficient to me, and safer since cars aren't moving at all when you cross - often you have to share the space with cars turning left when you cross. I wish we had more of these." --- These are called "pedestrian scrambles", and I like them a lot more too. I do know there's a few in the Sydney CBD, but I don't recall them being marked particularly well that they are a scramble. The ones in Oakland (picture below) are very well demarcated, and a study found them to reduce vehicle-pedestrian conflict though did increase the amount of people crossing parallel to traffic when the signals indicated "don't walk". Picture: https://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/crossings_6a.jpg https://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/crossings... Study: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fh5q4dk https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fh5q4dk

jakecopp 4y ago
One of the side effect issues of scrambles is to obtain the same throughput of cars you have to may have to increase the delay in between pedestrian cycles. When only allowing pedestrians on some axis you can allow cars to run in parallel. One argument I saw somewhere (I can't remember where) is that if there are enough people to make a scramble worthwhile (and you don't care about car throughput) - you probably shouldn't have any cars there at all! This comment covers some of the downsides: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/27/a-pedestrian-scramble-can-make-an-intersection-safer#comment-4223276181 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/27/a-pedestrian-...
- mjevans 4y ago
  If there are enough for a scramble, then there are probably enough to build a pedestrian layer _above_ the car layer entirely. Isolating large vehicles from fragile human beings is the best engineering solution.
  - jakecopp 4y ago
    > there are probably enough to build a pedestrian layer _above_ the car layer entirely. Isolating large vehicles from fragile human beings is the best engineering As far as I can tell, the general consensus among urban planners is that building pedestrian overpasses/Skyways/skywalks is a _really bad idea_. They suck pedestrian life away from the ground plane and surrender it to cars, which has all sorts of second order effects. The ground level becomes darker, and more dangerous with less "eyes on the street". Car focused transport planners are more bold to increase traffic volume (with increases in pollution/crashes/noise). Businesses on the street struggle. > Isolating large vehicles from fragile human beings is the best engineering solution. It may be the best _engineering_ solution (don't get me wrong, I love some Brutalism and textured concrete), but it's usually a horrible outcome for street life. The best solution for a healthy, livable street is to build large spaces for pedestrians and cyclists, reduce car speeds to 30kph/20mph, or remove cars altogether.

quickthrower2 4y ago

Chatswood (a busy Sydney suburb) has one too

ehnto 4y ago

In regards to ped/car conflict, it would be nice to at least have red, yellow, green instead of red, flashing red, green. I often get irate cars gesturing as if I were crossing on a red when actually they glanced at the flashing red. That just means don't start walking, it is the yellow of ped lights and it lasts a while. The flashing red usually starts pretty soon after the green, you usually can't cross entirely on a green. It doesn't mean the person was slow or jumped the light. Some other nitpicks: As a car, you have to wait until everyone is finished crossing. You can't just sneak through the middle, or cut just behind someone. Unrelated to lights but tangential, you have to give way to all existing traffic when entering a road. That means if you take a turn, and someone is crossing the road ahead of you, you have to wait. They couldn't know you were about to barell around the corner, and they are under no obligation to hurry out of your way. No stress, you will be gone in seconds.

registeredcorn 4y ago
If I had to guess, they probably don't want red/yellow/green for pedestrian walkways because it might confuse drivers into thinking that light is for them. I do think an alternative would probably be preferable, I'm just not sure what it would look like.
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  In the UK, flashing green man means "don't start crossing". Where I live in the US, red countdown timer means "don't start crossing".
  - maria2 4y ago
    The red countdown timer means run in the US.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      No, they are correct, it means "don't start crossing." Not everyone can run, eg, people in wheelchairs or people who need walkers, or able bodied people carrying lots of groceries. Running as a pedestrian is very dangerous. It creates confusion for drivers, it makes you more difficult to see, and it makes it more difficult for you to see if you're running in front of a moving car.

kmlx 4y ago

> This seems more efficient to me, and safer since cars aren't moving at all when you cross - often you have to share the space with cars turning left when you cross. one of the features i loved moving to London: there's no "cars turning AND pedestrians crossing the street". yes, it does add a bit to congestion, but makes things more safe when walking, as well as when driving (and yes, i do both in London). and it's still weird travelling thru places that don't have this.

pharmakom 4y ago
Net effect on congestion may well be positive if it encourages more walking.
- iggldiggl 4y ago
  Though it could equally mean longer waiting times for pedestrians, too, due to longer traffic lights cycle lengths…

iso1631 4y ago

Why not just push them with your elbow? Or the end of a key?

grishka 4y ago

St Petersburg has very few crossings that have traffic light buttons. When there is a button, it usually comes with a huge bright yellow sign with an arrow pointing at it. So for me, when I visit other countries, it's sometimes very non obvious that there is a button in the first place — I'm just not used to them being a thing. So I'd stand there clueless, waiting for the light to change, only to realize a minute later that there might be a button that I have to press.