3 ms·
> 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 qu
by 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.