5 ms·

> Why don’t lights ever sit idle with the pedestrian crossing on and the cars must wait? The author knows the answer as well as most readers do: because the in

> Why don’t lights ever sit idle with the pedestrian crossing on and the cars must wait? The author knows the answer as well as most readers do: because the intersection is being designed with cars in mind, not human beings.

_cenw 2y ago
I'm about 99% sure that was a rhetorical question so you can ask yourself why we put cars before people.
- criddell 2y ago
  People are in cars too.
  - leonheld 2y ago
    I think we should give priority to the people who are no inside multi-ton metal boxes, pollute less, can get on average healthier due to walking etc etc... At least inside our cities.
nmeofthestate 2y ago
Usually a crossing will instantly switch when the pedestrian button is pressed, if enough time has passed since the last "walk" cycle. Having a stage where walk is enabled when there's no pedestrians around wouldn't much help pedestrians, and would introduce inefficiency in throughput. And obviously, drivers can't press a button, so it makes more sense for controls to be accessible to the pedestrians.
- dleslie 2y ago
  > Having a stage where walk is enabled when there's no pedestrians around wouldn't much help pedestrians, and would introduce inefficiency in throughput It forces drivers to reduce speed and come to a full stop; dramatically decreasing the likelihood of collisions with pedestrians they did not notice.
- dr_kretyn 2y ago
  Instantly? You're definitely not in North America. Many intersections around me, if you missed pressing the crossing button before parallel street had a green light, you missed your opportunity to walk for the next minute.
  - programjames 2y ago
    *five minutes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
crackercrews 2y ago
> designed with cars in mind, not human beings This is a bad faith framing. The cars are driven by humans. Or in the case of autonomous driving, are driving humans around. I've come up to plenty of lights that had the pedestrian signal lit even though there were no pedestrians. This happens during the day and at night, and is frustrating. Just happened the other day when I was driving around midnight. Not a pedestrian in sight!
- dleslie 2y ago
  If the designers were truly considering the well-being of the occupants of the vehicles then they would be designing cities to minimize the time spent in vehicles; which means more than saving a few seconds at a stop light, it means getting them out of their cars entirely.
  - crackercrews 2y ago
    That might fly in temperate parts of California, but it sure doesn't work in places with less pedestrian-friendly weather.
    - jplrssn 2y ago
      There are plenty of examples of walkable neighbourhoods in places with cold and/or wet weather.
      - crackercrews 2y ago
        Yes, there are some places that people can walk, nearly everywhere. But GP suggested "getting them out of their cars entirely". That is not a nuanced proposal that acknowledges tradeoffs and seeks to find a balanced approach. It's saying that people should not be in cars. Tell that to a parent with 4 bags of groceries and 3 kids and see what the reaction is. If we want better cities and towns, zealotry won't get us very far. It will get us laughed at. And I say this as someone who walks all the time and is about to do so right now.
      - 2y ago
roguecoder 2y ago
Drivers are on average richer than pedestrians. In America, with our current wealth disparity, that leaves their interests wildly over-represented in policy and infrastructure.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  More like voters are on average more likely to be drivers than pedestrians, so politicians favor drivers. In my experience this is even more true for poor voters as they generally can’t afford to live in walkable areas.

_cenw 2y ago

I'm about 99% sure that was a rhetorical question so you can ask yourself why we put cars before people.

criddell 2y ago
People are in cars too.
- leonheld 2y ago
  I think we should give priority to the people who are no inside multi-ton metal boxes, pollute less, can get on average healthier due to walking etc etc... At least inside our cities.

nmeofthestate 2y ago

Usually a crossing will instantly switch when the pedestrian button is pressed, if enough time has passed since the last "walk" cycle. Having a stage where walk is enabled when there's no pedestrians around wouldn't much help pedestrians, and would introduce inefficiency in throughput. And obviously, drivers can't press a button, so it makes more sense for controls to be accessible to the pedestrians.

dleslie 2y ago
> Having a stage where walk is enabled when there's no pedestrians around wouldn't much help pedestrians, and would introduce inefficiency in throughput It forces drivers to reduce speed and come to a full stop; dramatically decreasing the likelihood of collisions with pedestrians they did not notice.
dr_kretyn 2y ago
Instantly? You're definitely not in North America. Many intersections around me, if you missed pressing the crossing button before parallel street had a green light, you missed your opportunity to walk for the next minute.
- programjames 2y ago
  *five minutes.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

crackercrews 2y ago

> designed with cars in mind, not human beings This is a bad faith framing. The cars are driven by humans. Or in the case of autonomous driving, are driving humans around. I've come up to plenty of lights that had the pedestrian signal lit even though there were no pedestrians. This happens during the day and at night, and is frustrating. Just happened the other day when I was driving around midnight. Not a pedestrian in sight!

dleslie 2y ago
If the designers were truly considering the well-being of the occupants of the vehicles then they would be designing cities to minimize the time spent in vehicles; which means more than saving a few seconds at a stop light, it means getting them out of their cars entirely.
- crackercrews 2y ago
  That might fly in temperate parts of California, but it sure doesn't work in places with less pedestrian-friendly weather.
  - jplrssn 2y ago
    There are plenty of examples of walkable neighbourhoods in places with cold and/or wet weather.
    - crackercrews 2y ago
      Yes, there are some places that people can walk, nearly everywhere. But GP suggested "getting them out of their cars entirely". That is not a nuanced proposal that acknowledges tradeoffs and seeks to find a balanced approach. It's saying that people should not be in cars. Tell that to a parent with 4 bags of groceries and 3 kids and see what the reaction is. If we want better cities and towns, zealotry won't get us very far. It will get us laughed at. And I say this as someone who walks all the time and is about to do so right now.
    - 2y ago

roguecoder 2y ago

Drivers are on average richer than pedestrians. In America, with our current wealth disparity, that leaves their interests wildly over-represented in policy and infrastructure.

HDThoreaun 2y ago
More like voters are on average more likely to be drivers than pedestrians, so politicians favor drivers. In my experience this is even more true for poor voters as they generally can’t afford to live in walkable areas.