3 ms·

> ... why do lonely crosswalks not immediately turn the lights red for the cars when you push the button? Sometimes Occam's razor[0] provides a satisfactory ex

> ... why do lonely crosswalks not immediately turn the lights red for the cars when you push the button? Sometimes Occam's razor[0] provides a satisfactory explanation: Traffic engineers have to take into account people pressing a request button at an arbitrary point in time, or with high frequency, which can cause significant negative impact to traffic flow if a minimum is not enforced. While a person, or relatively small set of people, seeking to cross a street is made to wait, the numerous people driving are kept moving such that traffic back pressure can be minimized. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

nerdbert 3y ago
They could have a minimum interval between changes, while still allowing it to change quickly if enough time has elapsed since the previous "walk" signal.
- AdieuToLogic 3y ago
  > They could have a minimum interval between changes, while still allowing it to change quickly if enough time has elapsed since the previous "walk" signal. This approach would not satisfy the very real use-case scenario of pedestrians pressing the request button whilst having no intention to cross. By having a "request -> delay -> satisfy" workflow, instead of a "request -> satisfy -> delay" one, traffic engineers can at least minimize the impact of random jerks.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Who said anything about frequency? For that explanation to make sense, the designer has to deliberately forget that you can put the delay after the cycle.
- AdieuToLogic 3y ago
  > Who said anything about frequency? I did, for the purpose of presenting a context to try to explore the original question: >> Seems a good place to ask a question I’ve been asking myself for a long time, and couldn’t figure out the answer to: why do lonely crosswalks not immediately turn the lights red for the cars when you push the button? Or at least, after a very short delay (< 3 seconds). Just because a pedestrian desires to reach their destination by crossing a road does not negate the desires of those driving to reach their destinations. Neither desire is more important than the other and a legitimate case can be made for slightly prioritizing drivers due to the volume of people involved. > ... the designer has to deliberately forget that you can put the delay after the cycle. That choice would prioritize one person, or at most a few, over those in vehicles having the same desire. Plus, it does not factor in impact with regard to other traffic control devices (a.k.a. "stop lights"). I guess the fundamental question is; does the want of one person outweigh those of others if that "one person" happens to be you?
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > That choice would prioritize one person, or at most a few, over those in vehicles having the same desire. I disagree. The flow of cars is (roughly) continuous, and the button presses are (roughly) randomly timed. Adding a delay to the button does not affect the experience of the cars. They still see a randomly timed red light. Even if there was an hour-long delay (with multiple pushes in flight), that wouldn't prioritize cars in any meaningful way. They'd still see the light change every 2-10 minutes or whatever it is, and whether they are caught by the light will still be random. So it might as well change right away.

nerdbert 3y ago

They could have a minimum interval between changes, while still allowing it to change quickly if enough time has elapsed since the previous "walk" signal.

AdieuToLogic 3y ago
> They could have a minimum interval between changes, while still allowing it to change quickly if enough time has elapsed since the previous "walk" signal. This approach would not satisfy the very real use-case scenario of pedestrians pressing the request button whilst having no intention to cross. By having a "request -> delay -> satisfy" workflow, instead of a "request -> satisfy -> delay" one, traffic engineers can at least minimize the impact of random jerks.

Dylan16807 3y ago

Who said anything about frequency? For that explanation to make sense, the designer has to deliberately forget that you can put the delay after the cycle.

AdieuToLogic 3y ago
> Who said anything about frequency? I did, for the purpose of presenting a context to try to explore the original question: >> Seems a good place to ask a question I’ve been asking myself for a long time, and couldn’t figure out the answer to: why do lonely crosswalks not immediately turn the lights red for the cars when you push the button? Or at least, after a very short delay (< 3 seconds). Just because a pedestrian desires to reach their destination by crossing a road does not negate the desires of those driving to reach their destinations. Neither desire is more important than the other and a legitimate case can be made for slightly prioritizing drivers due to the volume of people involved. > ... the designer has to deliberately forget that you can put the delay after the cycle. That choice would prioritize one person, or at most a few, over those in vehicles having the same desire. Plus, it does not factor in impact with regard to other traffic control devices (a.k.a. "stop lights"). I guess the fundamental question is; does the want of one person outweigh those of others if that "one person" happens to be you?
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > That choice would prioritize one person, or at most a few, over those in vehicles having the same desire. I disagree. The flow of cars is (roughly) continuous, and the button presses are (roughly) randomly timed. Adding a delay to the button does not affect the experience of the cars. They still see a randomly timed red light. Even if there was an hour-long delay (with multiple pushes in flight), that wouldn't prioritize cars in any meaningful way. They'd still see the light change every 2-10 minutes or whatever it is, and whether they are caught by the light will still be random. So it might as well change right away.