6 ms·

American crosswalks are just insane. In Europe cars are not allowed to drive through the crossing on the "walk" signal. In the US the pedestrian is expected to

American crosswalks are just insane. In Europe cars are not allowed to drive through the crossing on the "walk" signal. In the US the pedestrian is expected to run the gauntlet, hoping that turning cars will see you and not mow you down. Pretty sure this is what is going to kill me, and that's in one of the more pedestrian friendly cities in the country, San Francisco. Keep the button, but for goodness sake stop letting cars drive through crosswalks in the "walk" phase.

standardUser 3y ago
I lived in downtown SF for a long time and I agree the crosswalks are a battlefield. Not just cars edging ahead or making right turns (or left turns on one way to one way), but cyclists like to stop square in the middle of crosswalks as well. I live in NY now and though the traffic laws are roughly the same, I almost never fear for my safety when crossing like I regularly did in SF.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  FWIW, cyclists do that for their own safety. It gets them out from between the cars stacked up behind. And also lets them clear the intersection while most cars are stopped (cross traffic stopped, same-way traffic only getting started). While you’re asking for better pedestrian infrastructure, consider asking for protected bike lanes as well.
  - plorkyeran 3y ago
    Yeah, I try not to block crosswalks if it looks like anyone will be using it, but partially into the crosswalk often feels like the safest place to be while waiting for a light.
    - imp0cat 3y ago
      We get those bike "boxes" - the first spot right next to the lights, that is reserved for cyclists - and they help a lot.
      - lhomdee 3y ago
        In London we have those but cars frequently stop over them either because the drivers are ignorant of the rules, they don’t care or they were too ambitious about making a green and ended up being forced to stop at the last minute. So as a cyclist I frequently have to push up to the pedestrian crossing for my own safety from cars behind.
  - gmgmgmgmgm 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - saagarjha 3y ago
      The "dedicated" bike lane that cars are merging into to turn right?
      - gmgmgmgmgm 3y ago
        No right turn or dedicated lights and they cyclists still do it. Quit making excuses
        saagarjha 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - InCityDreams 3y ago
      "They" = "some".
- kspacewalk2 3y ago
  >I live in NY now and though the traffic laws are roughly the same, No right turns on red is a huge improvement. Don't the five boroughs have that?
  - laurencerowe 3y ago
    Sadly I find cars turning left on green are just as much of a problem.
    - kspacewalk2 3y ago
      I think an easy safety improvement is a median that extends past the crosswalk/bike lane[0].
  - standardUser 3y ago
    You are absolutely right! I've barely driven in the time I've lived here and I had forgotten. It does make a huge difference.
alistairSH 3y ago
That’s my daily hell. I walk to work and there’s a 6 lane road to cross. The signal works as designed, but that means cars are turning right in green while I’m crossing. And with big wide corners, they’re going around the bend at 35+ mph. It would be so much safer to do a pedestrian scramble. There aren’t a lot of pedestrians at this intersection, maybe one every 4-5 cycles, so it’s not going to slow traffic much if at all to have a 30-45second dedicated time where we can walk all the way across. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/27/a-pedestrian-scramble-can-make-an-intersection-safer https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/27/a-pedestrian-...
- erhaetherth 3y ago
  "Scramble" is a funny term for that. I guess it kind of looks like the pedestrians are "scrambling" to an outsider but hopefully most of them know where they're going and aren't scrambling. I think that author likes to make up words, like "Stroad".
  - ultrarunner 3y ago
    "Stroad" seems like a funny term at first, but watching the video about Stroads is almost as radicalizing as trying to push a stroller anywhere (or, frankly, taking a young child anywhere at all without a car).
    - jacobolus 3y ago
      Strollers have their uses, but are radically overused to the detriment of families who become over-reliant on them. They keep the kids dependent, detached from the world, and physically weak. Typical infants can be wrapped on an adult's chest, can be mostly riding on shoulders by 9 months old, and kids can be walking independently most of the time by age 2 or 2.5 and participating in conversation with accompanying adults. By age 4 or so typical kids can continuously walk several miles at decent speed without any issue. I regularly see 4+ year-olds sitting in a stroller playing phone games or just looking bored and disengaged, while the adult pushing the stroller otherwise completely ignores them, and it always makes me cringe.
smogcutter 3y ago
> In the US the pedestrian is expected to run the gauntlet, hoping that turning cars will see you and not mow you down. Sounds like Naples
- laurencerowe 3y ago
  I have been to Naples and don't remember it being anything like as bad, perhaps because the roads were narrower.
doubled112 3y ago
> the pedestrian is expected to run the gauntlet, hoping that turning cars will see you and not mow you down This goes for us in Canada too. I tell my kids to "be quick or be dead, but be safe". Probably kind of morbid, but an intersection is not a place to hang out.
- sharkbird2 3y ago
  Morbid can be good. I feel like more parents need to remind their kids of death now and then. I know that sounds crazy, but I really think that a healthy knowledge and acceptance of death is a big part of what makes a well developed and healthy person.
partiallypro 3y ago
Right on red is also allowed in many metro areas, which is pretty dangerous for pedestrians. I get it for rural roads with no crosswalks or pedestrian traffic...but in cities right on red should be illegal. It actually was illegal until the 70s oil embargo.
sprobertson 3y ago
> one of the more pedestrian friendly cities in the country, San Francisco Sarcasm?
- Cockbrand 3y ago
  Realism, unfortunately, as most places in the US are even more hostile towards pedestrians.
  - laurencerowe 3y ago
    Yup. It’s actually possible to live without a car in SF. I have one but now I no longer commute to the burbs for work I only drive once a week or so.
erhaetherth 3y ago
I don't mind if cars drive through on the walk phase as long as they slow to a crawl and make sure no one is walking first. Sometimes the road is very much clear because the person has already crossed, there's no need to hold up the cars. And I say this as a pedestrian, I walk to work. And I am afraid of getting hit every day but for a different reason. The crosswalks are in the stupidest friggin spots, around a bend in the road, and cars are apparently allowed to park right up against the crosswalk so if even want a hope in hell of being seen you have to walk part way onto the road, and peak your head around the van that's blocking the view for both you and oncoming cars, and then hope they can see you around the bend in the road.
AdrianoKF 3y ago
At least in Germany (where I live), it is entirely normal for the pedestrian lights to be synchronized with the road parallel to it, meaning that turning cars will cross the path of walking pedestrians. However, by law pedestrians have the right of way in these situations (since cars are crossing their path), and generally that is being respected. I'd say that's what sets it apart from the US in that regard. We even have right on red in some metro areas, though admittedly that's where things can get quite dangerous at times.
- danielhep 3y ago
  It's the same in the US legally speaking, but from what I've seen, intersections in Germany are designed so that the car is positions pretty much prependicularly to the crosswalk as it crosses, giving the driver good visibility to people crossing. And the right corners reduce the speed of people as they turn.
andyjohnson0 3y ago
> In the US the pedestrian is expected to run the gauntlet, hoping that turning cars will see you European here. What is the reason that this is allowed?
- blensor 3y ago
  I assume it's the turn right on red that conflicts with the pedestrian green light Although that's the same in Europe, if you turn right on green you usually have to be aware of a green pedestrian light that crosses the street you want to turn into. The difference is that here in Austria walking is much more common and you usually get fined quickly if you take the right of way from a pedestrian
  - mcv 3y ago
    The rule in Netherland is that traffic going straight ahead (including pedestrians) have right of way over traffic making a turn. So cars turning right on green have to stop for pedestrians crossing on green. But Dutch traffic lights for cars also make clear whether or not this is an issue you need to watch out for; if the traffic light has an arrow pointing right, you're guaranteed to not be crossing pedestrians on green. If it's a solid circle, you need to watch out. My driving instructor paid a lot of attention to that.
lhomdee 3y ago
Try downtown Johannesburg, turning cars are supposed to wait for pedestrians when it’s a green pedestrian light, but the minibus taxis will intentionally drive through the crossings forcing gaps between pedestrians. You almost have to hold your nerve because if you don’t use the green, you’ll never be able to cross. And of course being South Africa you also have to watch out for the “stopped” cars, which are never quite stopped and actually edge forward while the driver is checking their phone and not watching if they’ll bump into a pedestrian crossing. When I used to run there I had to tap the bonnet/hood of cars multiple times to catch the attention of the driver because they were edging forward over the crossing while checking their phone.
gambiting 3y ago
>>In Europe cars are not allowed to drive through the crossing on the "walk" signal. That's not true - in Poland you get a green right turn arrow even on red, and you can legally drive over a crossing even when the pedestrians have a green light to cross. It is absolutely your responsibility to make sure that it is safe to do so. https://www.gazelka.pl/blog/zielona-strzalka-warunkowego-skretu-czyli-o-co-tu-chodzi/ https://www.gazelka.pl/blog/zielona-strzalka-warunkowego-skr...
- paganel 3y ago
  That's crazy, because we have the same right green arrow on red here in Romania but I'd go to jail were I to, God forbid, hit the pedestrians crossing the street on "their" green. If there are pedestrians on the crosswalk, you're turning right and you haven't stopped for them, chances are you'll get your license taken by the police (if the police happens to be in the area). I agree that the pedestrians should double-check in these sorts of situations, because the cemetery is full with people who have had the law on their side, but, nevertheless, it's primarily the drivers' responsibility to respect the law.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    Sorry maybe this is a misunderstanding, I mean it as "you can drive over a [pedestrian] crossing" not "you can drive over a pedestrian". Obviously actually hitting anyone crossing the road would land you in jail. And yes you also have to stop if anyone is on the crossing. But assuming there isn't anyone and you have the green arrow then you can still drive over the crossing, even though pedestrians have a green "walk" light displayed.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  In Finland green arrow will explicitly tell you that no one else including pedestrians have right of passage. You are still not allowed to drive over anyone, but pedestrians certainly do not have green light at such moments.
  - gambiting 3y ago
Symbiote 3y ago
> In Europe No, it varies. Turning cars in Britain never go over 'walk' crossings, but they do in Denmark. It's something I check whenever I drive to a new country. I think "right turn on red" should be banned first, as this leads to a car drive looking left to see if the road is clear, rather than looking right where pedestrians might be crossing.
- AmpsterMan 3y ago
  I've spoken to my friends on how right-on-red is one of the most anti-pedestrian rules of the street that exist. It was like pulling nails trying to convince them that the added convenience for motorists is not worth the increased danger to pedestrians... I live in the city, they in the suburbs. It's not that they are uncaring (well, not directly) it is just that for many people, imagining a lifestyle different from theirs is very difficult. I'm convinced that North America will only get its act together when gasoline reaches $9.00/gal. Only then will middle class folks start looking toward city living and only then will we get any appreciable progress in city life. I only hope that we reach that point BEFORE the climate catastrophe worsens beyond repair. The fracking boom doesn't have me very confident of this.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    > I'm convinced that North America will only get its act together when gasoline reaches $9.00/gal. What if North America successfully moves from petrol-powered cars to electric ones, and autonomous vehicles get rolled out, and in the end the sprawling development and the reliance on vehicles remains just as entrenched?
  - TheBigSalad 3y ago
    You sound frustrated that you couldn't convince your friend of something so obvious. But you realize most people are both pedestrians and motorists, and still overwhelmingly prefer right on red.
  - impendia 3y ago
    I live in Columbia, SC -- a place that is surprisingly pedestrian-friendly but where there is little awareness of this. I walk to most places I go -- decidedly unusual here. I would actually defend right-on-red. Indeed, when I do drive, I get annoyed by all the "no turn on red" signs which slow things down. In my estimation, the problem (locally, anyway) is cultural: drivers don't think to look, or else they feel entitled to turn first even if I'm crossing already and they think they can squeeze by faster. Convince these drivers to care about pedestrians, and to yield when legally required to, and you've solved the problem.
unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
For decades in Boston, many lights were programmed to send cars through active crosswalks on left turns. In some cases, the only place for a car to go on green was through an active crosswalk. Maybe the worst examples have been ended over the years[1] but "concurrent signaling" has been an absurd signature of callous safety-hostile traffic design right up until this year. "Turns on red are extremely dangerous to vulnerable road users: a 1980 Insurance Institute of Highway Safety study found that they increase pedestrian crashes by 60 percent, and bicycle crashes by 100 percent." [2] [1] https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2021/11/04/lawsuit-flawed-walk-signal-pedestrian-death/ https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2021/11/04/lawsuit-flawed-... [2] https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/06/15/guest-column-why-bostons-new-traffic-signal-policy-is-a-big-deal https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/06/15/guest-column-why-bos...
kolinko 3y ago
Depends on a country. In Poland, if the light is plain green for cars, it can be also green for pedestrians if you turn left or right, so you need to watch out for pedestrians and other traffic as a driver. If the light is directional left/right, it means everyone else has a red light.
JohnFen 3y ago
> In the US the pedestrian is expected to run the gauntlet Technically, in most of the US, if a pedestrian looks like they're wanting to cross the street at a corner, that legally makes it a crosswalk whether it's marked as such or not (excepting for ones that have a sign indicating that there is no pedestrian crossing allowed). Failing to stop to allow the pedestrian to cross is an infraction and you can be ticketed for it. Practically speaking, though, you're correct. > that's in one of the more pedestrian friendly cities in the country, San Francisco. Wait, what? San Francisco is considered a pedestrian-friendly city? That seriously boggles my mind. I mean, there are certainly cities that are worse, but there are also plenty of cities that are better.
wobbly_bush 3y ago
> hoping that turning cars will see you and not mow you down. Pretty sure this is what is going to kill me I saw an accident in front of my eyes where this played out - a turning car mowed an elderly couple crossing slowly with the help of walking sticks. It was not pretty.
- dingnuts 3y ago
  Notably this is a cultural and sentencing problem. Killing pedestrians in a crosswalk should be vehicular manslaughter with serious prison time attached. Perpetrators tend to be let off easily for cultural reasons. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed. Drivers will respect pedestrians when the law is evenly enforced
BrandoElFollito 3y ago
> In Europe cars are not allowed to drive through the crossing on the "walk" signal They are. When you turn right on your green, the pedestrians have a green light. They have priority of course but then you are free to cross the crossing on their green.

standardUser 3y ago

I lived in downtown SF for a long time and I agree the crosswalks are a battlefield. Not just cars edging ahead or making right turns (or left turns on one way to one way), but cyclists like to stop square in the middle of crosswalks as well. I live in NY now and though the traffic laws are roughly the same, I almost never fear for my safety when crossing like I regularly did in SF.

alistairSH 3y ago
FWIW, cyclists do that for their own safety. It gets them out from between the cars stacked up behind. And also lets them clear the intersection while most cars are stopped (cross traffic stopped, same-way traffic only getting started). While you’re asking for better pedestrian infrastructure, consider asking for protected bike lanes as well.
- plorkyeran 3y ago
  Yeah, I try not to block crosswalks if it looks like anyone will be using it, but partially into the crosswalk often feels like the safest place to be while waiting for a light.
  - imp0cat 3y ago
    We get those bike "boxes" - the first spot right next to the lights, that is reserved for cyclists - and they help a lot.
    - lhomdee 3y ago
      In London we have those but cars frequently stop over them either because the drivers are ignorant of the rules, they don’t care or they were too ambitious about making a green and ended up being forced to stop at the last minute. So as a cyclist I frequently have to push up to the pedestrian crossing for my own safety from cars behind.
- gmgmgmgmgm 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - saagarjha 3y ago
    The "dedicated" bike lane that cars are merging into to turn right?
    - gmgmgmgmgm 3y ago
      No right turn or dedicated lights and they cyclists still do it. Quit making excuses
      - saagarjha 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - InCityDreams 3y ago
    "They" = "some".
kspacewalk2 3y ago
>I live in NY now and though the traffic laws are roughly the same, No right turns on red is a huge improvement. Don't the five boroughs have that?
- laurencerowe 3y ago
  Sadly I find cars turning left on green are just as much of a problem.
  - kspacewalk2 3y ago
    I think an easy safety improvement is a median that extends past the crosswalk/bike lane[0].
- standardUser 3y ago
  You are absolutely right! I've barely driven in the time I've lived here and I had forgotten. It does make a huge difference.

alistairSH 3y ago

That’s my daily hell. I walk to work and there’s a 6 lane road to cross. The signal works as designed, but that means cars are turning right in green while I’m crossing. And with big wide corners, they’re going around the bend at 35+ mph. It would be so much safer to do a pedestrian scramble. There aren’t a lot of pedestrians at this intersection, maybe one every 4-5 cycles, so it’s not going to slow traffic much if at all to have a 30-45second dedicated time where we can walk all the way across. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/27/a-pedestrian-scramble-can-make-an-intersection-safer https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/27/a-pedestrian-...

erhaetherth 3y ago
"Scramble" is a funny term for that. I guess it kind of looks like the pedestrians are "scrambling" to an outsider but hopefully most of them know where they're going and aren't scrambling. I think that author likes to make up words, like "Stroad".
- ultrarunner 3y ago
  "Stroad" seems like a funny term at first, but watching the video about Stroads is almost as radicalizing as trying to push a stroller anywhere (or, frankly, taking a young child anywhere at all without a car).
  - jacobolus 3y ago
    Strollers have their uses, but are radically overused to the detriment of families who become over-reliant on them. They keep the kids dependent, detached from the world, and physically weak. Typical infants can be wrapped on an adult's chest, can be mostly riding on shoulders by 9 months old, and kids can be walking independently most of the time by age 2 or 2.5 and participating in conversation with accompanying adults. By age 4 or so typical kids can continuously walk several miles at decent speed without any issue. I regularly see 4+ year-olds sitting in a stroller playing phone games or just looking bored and disengaged, while the adult pushing the stroller otherwise completely ignores them, and it always makes me cringe.

smogcutter 3y ago

> In the US the pedestrian is expected to run the gauntlet, hoping that turning cars will see you and not mow you down. Sounds like Naples

laurencerowe 3y ago
I have been to Naples and don't remember it being anything like as bad, perhaps because the roads were narrower.

doubled112 3y ago

> the pedestrian is expected to run the gauntlet, hoping that turning cars will see you and not mow you down This goes for us in Canada too. I tell my kids to "be quick or be dead, but be safe". Probably kind of morbid, but an intersection is not a place to hang out.

sharkbird2 3y ago
Morbid can be good. I feel like more parents need to remind their kids of death now and then. I know that sounds crazy, but I really think that a healthy knowledge and acceptance of death is a big part of what makes a well developed and healthy person.

partiallypro 3y ago

Right on red is also allowed in many metro areas, which is pretty dangerous for pedestrians. I get it for rural roads with no crosswalks or pedestrian traffic...but in cities right on red should be illegal. It actually was illegal until the 70s oil embargo.

sprobertson 3y ago

> one of the more pedestrian friendly cities in the country, San Francisco Sarcasm?

Cockbrand 3y ago
Realism, unfortunately, as most places in the US are even more hostile towards pedestrians.
- laurencerowe 3y ago
  Yup. It’s actually possible to live without a car in SF. I have one but now I no longer commute to the burbs for work I only drive once a week or so.

erhaetherth 3y ago

I don't mind if cars drive through on the walk phase as long as they slow to a crawl and make sure no one is walking first. Sometimes the road is very much clear because the person has already crossed, there's no need to hold up the cars. And I say this as a pedestrian, I walk to work. And I am afraid of getting hit every day but for a different reason. The crosswalks are in the stupidest friggin spots, around a bend in the road, and cars are apparently allowed to park right up against the crosswalk so if even want a hope in hell of being seen you have to walk part way onto the road, and peak your head around the van that's blocking the view for both you and oncoming cars, and then hope they can see you around the bend in the road.

AdrianoKF 3y ago

At least in Germany (where I live), it is entirely normal for the pedestrian lights to be synchronized with the road parallel to it, meaning that turning cars will cross the path of walking pedestrians. However, by law pedestrians have the right of way in these situations (since cars are crossing their path), and generally that is being respected. I'd say that's what sets it apart from the US in that regard. We even have right on red in some metro areas, though admittedly that's where things can get quite dangerous at times.

danielhep 3y ago
It's the same in the US legally speaking, but from what I've seen, intersections in Germany are designed so that the car is positions pretty much prependicularly to the crosswalk as it crosses, giving the driver good visibility to people crossing. And the right corners reduce the speed of people as they turn.

andyjohnson0 3y ago

> In the US the pedestrian is expected to run the gauntlet, hoping that turning cars will see you European here. What is the reason that this is allowed?

blensor 3y ago
I assume it's the turn right on red that conflicts with the pedestrian green light Although that's the same in Europe, if you turn right on green you usually have to be aware of a green pedestrian light that crosses the street you want to turn into. The difference is that here in Austria walking is much more common and you usually get fined quickly if you take the right of way from a pedestrian
- mcv 3y ago
  The rule in Netherland is that traffic going straight ahead (including pedestrians) have right of way over traffic making a turn. So cars turning right on green have to stop for pedestrians crossing on green. But Dutch traffic lights for cars also make clear whether or not this is an issue you need to watch out for; if the traffic light has an arrow pointing right, you're guaranteed to not be crossing pedestrians on green. If it's a solid circle, you need to watch out. My driving instructor paid a lot of attention to that.

lhomdee 3y ago

Try downtown Johannesburg, turning cars are supposed to wait for pedestrians when it’s a green pedestrian light, but the minibus taxis will intentionally drive through the crossings forcing gaps between pedestrians. You almost have to hold your nerve because if you don’t use the green, you’ll never be able to cross. And of course being South Africa you also have to watch out for the “stopped” cars, which are never quite stopped and actually edge forward while the driver is checking their phone and not watching if they’ll bump into a pedestrian crossing. When I used to run there I had to tap the bonnet/hood of cars multiple times to catch the attention of the driver because they were edging forward over the crossing while checking their phone.

gambiting 3y ago

>>In Europe cars are not allowed to drive through the crossing on the "walk" signal. That's not true - in Poland you get a green right turn arrow even on red, and you can legally drive over a crossing even when the pedestrians have a green light to cross. It is absolutely your responsibility to make sure that it is safe to do so. https://www.gazelka.pl/blog/zielona-strzalka-warunkowego-skretu-czyli-o-co-tu-chodzi/ https://www.gazelka.pl/blog/zielona-strzalka-warunkowego-skr...

paganel 3y ago
That's crazy, because we have the same right green arrow on red here in Romania but I'd go to jail were I to, God forbid, hit the pedestrians crossing the street on "their" green. If there are pedestrians on the crosswalk, you're turning right and you haven't stopped for them, chances are you'll get your license taken by the police (if the police happens to be in the area). I agree that the pedestrians should double-check in these sorts of situations, because the cemetery is full with people who have had the law on their side, but, nevertheless, it's primarily the drivers' responsibility to respect the law.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Sorry maybe this is a misunderstanding, I mean it as "you can drive over a [pedestrian] crossing" not "you can drive over a pedestrian". Obviously actually hitting anyone crossing the road would land you in jail. And yes you also have to stop if anyone is on the crossing. But assuming there isn't anyone and you have the green arrow then you can still drive over the crossing, even though pedestrians have a green "walk" light displayed.
Ekaros 3y ago
In Finland green arrow will explicitly tell you that no one else including pedestrians have right of passage. You are still not allowed to drive over anyone, but pedestrians certainly do not have green light at such moments.
- gambiting 3y ago

Symbiote 3y ago

> In Europe No, it varies. Turning cars in Britain never go over 'walk' crossings, but they do in Denmark. It's something I check whenever I drive to a new country. I think "right turn on red" should be banned first, as this leads to a car drive looking left to see if the road is clear, rather than looking right where pedestrians might be crossing.

AmpsterMan 3y ago
I've spoken to my friends on how right-on-red is one of the most anti-pedestrian rules of the street that exist. It was like pulling nails trying to convince them that the added convenience for motorists is not worth the increased danger to pedestrians... I live in the city, they in the suburbs. It's not that they are uncaring (well, not directly) it is just that for many people, imagining a lifestyle different from theirs is very difficult. I'm convinced that North America will only get its act together when gasoline reaches $9.00/gal. Only then will middle class folks start looking toward city living and only then will we get any appreciable progress in city life. I only hope that we reach that point BEFORE the climate catastrophe worsens beyond repair. The fracking boom doesn't have me very confident of this.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  > I'm convinced that North America will only get its act together when gasoline reaches $9.00/gal. What if North America successfully moves from petrol-powered cars to electric ones, and autonomous vehicles get rolled out, and in the end the sprawling development and the reliance on vehicles remains just as entrenched?
- TheBigSalad 3y ago
  You sound frustrated that you couldn't convince your friend of something so obvious. But you realize most people are both pedestrians and motorists, and still overwhelmingly prefer right on red.
- impendia 3y ago
  I live in Columbia, SC -- a place that is surprisingly pedestrian-friendly but where there is little awareness of this. I walk to most places I go -- decidedly unusual here. I would actually defend right-on-red. Indeed, when I do drive, I get annoyed by all the "no turn on red" signs which slow things down. In my estimation, the problem (locally, anyway) is cultural: drivers don't think to look, or else they feel entitled to turn first even if I'm crossing already and they think they can squeeze by faster. Convince these drivers to care about pedestrians, and to yield when legally required to, and you've solved the problem.

unyttigfjelltol 3y ago

For decades in Boston, many lights were programmed to send cars through active crosswalks on left turns. In some cases, the only place for a car to go on green was through an active crosswalk. Maybe the worst examples have been ended over the years[1] but "concurrent signaling" has been an absurd signature of callous safety-hostile traffic design right up until this year. "Turns on red are extremely dangerous to vulnerable road users: a 1980 Insurance Institute of Highway Safety study found that they increase pedestrian crashes by 60 percent, and bicycle crashes by 100 percent." [2] [1] https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2021/11/04/lawsuit-flawed-walk-signal-pedestrian-death/ https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2021/11/04/lawsuit-flawed-... [2] https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/06/15/guest-column-why-bostons-new-traffic-signal-policy-is-a-big-deal https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/06/15/guest-column-why-bos...

kolinko 3y ago

Depends on a country. In Poland, if the light is plain green for cars, it can be also green for pedestrians if you turn left or right, so you need to watch out for pedestrians and other traffic as a driver. If the light is directional left/right, it means everyone else has a red light.

JohnFen 3y ago

> In the US the pedestrian is expected to run the gauntlet Technically, in most of the US, if a pedestrian looks like they're wanting to cross the street at a corner, that legally makes it a crosswalk whether it's marked as such or not (excepting for ones that have a sign indicating that there is no pedestrian crossing allowed). Failing to stop to allow the pedestrian to cross is an infraction and you can be ticketed for it. Practically speaking, though, you're correct. > that's in one of the more pedestrian friendly cities in the country, San Francisco. Wait, what? San Francisco is considered a pedestrian-friendly city? That seriously boggles my mind. I mean, there are certainly cities that are worse, but there are also plenty of cities that are better.

wobbly_bush 3y ago

> hoping that turning cars will see you and not mow you down. Pretty sure this is what is going to kill me I saw an accident in front of my eyes where this played out - a turning car mowed an elderly couple crossing slowly with the help of walking sticks. It was not pretty.

dingnuts 3y ago
Notably this is a cultural and sentencing problem. Killing pedestrians in a crosswalk should be vehicular manslaughter with serious prison time attached. Perpetrators tend to be let off easily for cultural reasons. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed. Drivers will respect pedestrians when the law is evenly enforced

BrandoElFollito 3y ago

> In Europe cars are not allowed to drive through the crossing on the "walk" signal They are. When you turn right on your green, the pedestrians have a green light. They have priority of course but then you are free to cross the crossing on their green.