5 ms·

There's three levels. Can the car drive in these situations? 1. Right turn, red for car, green for pedestrian. 2. Right turn, green for car, green for pedest

There's three levels. Can the car drive in these situations? 1. Right turn, red for car, green for pedestrian. 2. Right turn, green for car, green for pedestrian. 3. Right turn, green for car, red for pedestrian. In USA, in some states the car driving in situation 1 is allowed (and naturally 2). I assume in most states 1 is not allowed and 2 is allowed. In Europe, I assume driving the car in situation 1 is not allowed anywhere. 2 is mixed, some places have traffic lights that create this green for both, some don't. 3 is of course allowed everywhere in the world.

jon-wood 3y ago
I find it baffling that anyone would ever create a crossing where situation 2 is possible. A crossing which can indicate it’s safe to cross while the associate lights are also saying a car can proceed through it is worse than useless. Just remove it and then at least pedestrians will know that they need to be paying particular attention.
- Glawen 3y ago
  Situation 2 is default in France, except on busy junctions. Its advantage is better throughput for both car and pedestrians. Funny thing is that situation 1 is now allowed for bicycle with the new M12 sign
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Ok, I'll just repeat the GP here but... Why not just remove the pedestrian light on those places? It's not improving anything. Is there some law against car-only lights?
    - MrJohz 3y ago
      I also still find it kind of odd, but it's not like the light is doing nothing. Typically, at least here in Germany, a crossing cycles between two states: * Cars can go north/south, pedestrians can cross the east and west roads * Cars can go east/west, pedestrians can cross the north and south roads. The key thing here is that pedestrians don't cross the "active" direction, i.e. when cars are going in a straight line from south to north, they will never run into a pedestrian crossing the road in front of them. This is ideal, because cars going in a straight direction tend to go quickly, so we want to alternate fast cars and pedestrians. However, obviously cars don't just go north and south, sometimes they turn. To turn, the car naturally needs to slow down, and also typically be more aware of their surroundings. Theoretically, this means that they are a lot more likely to see, and be able to stop for, a pedestrian crossing the road as they turn. The argument then goes that this group of cars is slow and aware enough that they can share a stretch of road with pedestrians (unlike fast cars traveling in a straight line, which must not share a stretch of road with pedestrians). Which means that you could allow pedestrians to cross if (and only if) the cars that they would intersect with are slow, turning cars. The advantage is that you go from three states in the cycle (cars N/S, cars E/W, all pedestrians) to two (cars N/S + pedestrians E/W, cars E/W + pedestrians N/S), which improves throughput because fewer people need to wait. In practice, this works for relatively small junctions with one or possibly two lanes, but three+ lanes become more complicated and need more states to handle the cars going left and right from different directions. But there is a thought process here about trying to find the right balance between safety and efficiency. As someone from the UK, I'm not sure I'm a fan, but some of that might just be not being used to it.
- chasd00 3y ago
  The two times I’ve seen pedestrians hit by cars it was the #2 situation and they had the walk signal. One of them was me hit by an actual police car. Wasn’t hurt except for a sprained wrist, I did the whole roll over the hood and off the other side thing though. Pretty embarrassing, I got up and told the officer I was fine and left (late to a conf call at work) sometimes I wish I was hurt just a little bit more. The settlement check would have been nice heh.

jon-wood 3y ago

I find it baffling that anyone would ever create a crossing where situation 2 is possible. A crossing which can indicate it’s safe to cross while the associate lights are also saying a car can proceed through it is worse than useless. Just remove it and then at least pedestrians will know that they need to be paying particular attention.

Glawen 3y ago
Situation 2 is default in France, except on busy junctions. Its advantage is better throughput for both car and pedestrians. Funny thing is that situation 1 is now allowed for bicycle with the new M12 sign
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Ok, I'll just repeat the GP here but... Why not just remove the pedestrian light on those places? It's not improving anything. Is there some law against car-only lights?
  - MrJohz 3y ago
    I also still find it kind of odd, but it's not like the light is doing nothing. Typically, at least here in Germany, a crossing cycles between two states: * Cars can go north/south, pedestrians can cross the east and west roads * Cars can go east/west, pedestrians can cross the north and south roads. The key thing here is that pedestrians don't cross the "active" direction, i.e. when cars are going in a straight line from south to north, they will never run into a pedestrian crossing the road in front of them. This is ideal, because cars going in a straight direction tend to go quickly, so we want to alternate fast cars and pedestrians. However, obviously cars don't just go north and south, sometimes they turn. To turn, the car naturally needs to slow down, and also typically be more aware of their surroundings. Theoretically, this means that they are a lot more likely to see, and be able to stop for, a pedestrian crossing the road as they turn. The argument then goes that this group of cars is slow and aware enough that they can share a stretch of road with pedestrians (unlike fast cars traveling in a straight line, which must not share a stretch of road with pedestrians). Which means that you could allow pedestrians to cross if (and only if) the cars that they would intersect with are slow, turning cars. The advantage is that you go from three states in the cycle (cars N/S, cars E/W, all pedestrians) to two (cars N/S + pedestrians E/W, cars E/W + pedestrians N/S), which improves throughput because fewer people need to wait. In practice, this works for relatively small junctions with one or possibly two lanes, but three+ lanes become more complicated and need more states to handle the cars going left and right from different directions. But there is a thought process here about trying to find the right balance between safety and efficiency. As someone from the UK, I'm not sure I'm a fan, but some of that might just be not being used to it.
chasd00 3y ago
The two times I’ve seen pedestrians hit by cars it was the #2 situation and they had the walk signal. One of them was me hit by an actual police car. Wasn’t hurt except for a sprained wrist, I did the whole roll over the hood and off the other side thing though. Pretty embarrassing, I got up and told the officer I was fine and left (late to a conf call at work) sometimes I wish I was hurt just a little bit more. The settlement check would have been nice heh.