EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: strawberry on September 12, 2022, 10:30:21 pm
-
atleast flags cant run out of electricity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY)
-
:-DD
The flags wouldn't last a week they would all be stolen by then.
-
This is one of my pet peeves. I live less than two miles from one of the largest universities in the US (65,000+ students). Driving past it reminds me of an old time shooting gallery full of targets zipping back and forth. Students are constantly running across the 8 lane highway without looking and are running in every conceivable direction. Some of them only a few feet from the marked cross walks. ALL of the intersections have lights for pedestrian crossings but none of the pedestrians and bicyclists pay the slightest attention to them. The TV news in this area is FULL of complaints about pedestrians and bicyclists getting hit by automobiles but every time that I drive past this university I see at least 6 people crossing the road in the middle of the block or ignoring the pedestrians crossing signals. On game days, you can count on seeing 30+ people doing the same.
-
This is one of my pet peeves. I live less than two miles from one of the largest universities in the US (65,000+ students). Driving past it reminds me of an old time shooting gallery full of targets zipping back and forth. Students are constantly running across the 8 lane highway without looking and are running in every conceivable direction. Some of them only a few feet from the marked cross walks. ALL of the intersections have lights for pedestrian crossings but none of the pedestrians and bicyclists pay the slightest attention to them. The TV news in this area is FULL of complaints about pedestrians and bicyclists getting hit by automobiles but every time that I drive past this university I see at least 6 people crossing the road in the middle of the block or ignoring the pedestrians crossing signals. On game days, you can count on seeing 30+ people doing the same.
I do have to wonder if you watched that video and took in any of the points made..
-
This is one of my pet peeves. I live less than two miles from one of the largest universities in the US (65,000+ students). Driving past it reminds me of an old time shooting gallery full of targets zipping back and forth. Students are constantly running across the 8 lane highway without looking and are running in every conceivable direction. Some of them only a few feet from the marked cross walks. ALL of the intersections have lights for pedestrian crossings but none of the pedestrians and bicyclists pay the slightest attention to them. The TV news in this area is FULL of complaints about pedestrians and bicyclists getting hit by automobiles but every time that I drive past this university I see at least 6 people crossing the road in the middle of the block or ignoring the pedestrians crossing signals. On game days, you can count on seeing 30+ people doing the same.
I do have to wonder if you watched that video and took in any of the points made..
I started to watch and the ADD kicked in. FFowared a few times. Still came away empty handed. From what I saw I suspect the pertinent info and the punchline could be condensed down to two minutes not half an hour. Jesus Christ.
-
There's a crosswalk near me that has a traffic signal and also used to have flags, I never used one of the silly little flags and I think they disappeared some years ago. Either way nobody is replacing traffic lights with flags, rather the flags are *added* to intersections occasionally, some of which have a traffic light already, others are just plain crosswalks with no signals. Nothing is being replaced.
-
5min to get into car and 5min to drive and park (car might be hot in summer as well ) quite a task to accomplish simple thing
or simply walk 5min to get there (guess students go for coffee brake ..)
-
It's just the problem with car centric planning: It isn't *bad* to use a car when needed, but it's bad to design a city in such a way that it's bloody hard to use anything *but* a car. NotJustBikes has some fantastic videos on this. And it's the older European cities that got this right: London, Amsterdam, Prague, Berlin... They still have car infrastructure, but most people use buses/bikes/trains/scooters in those cities. If London had only cars and buses, you can bet that it would be even more of a gridlocked mess.
Most American towns experienced huge post WWII growth spurts, with the middle class booming and demanding a huge detached house with two car driveway on a sprawling surburban estate. These towns don't usually have massive traffic issues (except maybe downtown), because there just isn't the space for the traffic. But they do have insane infrastructure requirements per person. Just compare the density of e.g. suburban Dallas to suburban London (anything within the M25 but outside of Zone 3 is 'suburban' for London, mostly houses with small shopping and business districts scattered about) and you will see the difference. It's going to bankrupt many US cities eventually, because the growth will stop, and there will be not enough tax income to pay for the huge 6 lane 'stroads' everywhere.
-
This is one of my pet peeves. I live less than two miles from one of the largest universities in the US (65,000+ students). Driving past it reminds me of an old time shooting gallery full of targets zipping back and forth. Students are constantly running across the 8 lane highway without looking and are running in every conceivable direction. Some of them only a few feet from the marked cross walks. ALL of the intersections have lights for pedestrian crossings but none of the pedestrians and bicyclists pay the slightest attention to them. The TV news in this area is FULL of complaints about pedestrians and bicyclists getting hit by automobiles but every time that I drive past this university I see at least 6 people crossing the road in the middle of the block or ignoring the pedestrians crossing signals. On game days, you can count on seeing 30+ people doing the same.
I do have to wonder if you watched that video and took in any of the points made..
I started to watch and the ADD kicked in. FFowared a few times. Still came away empty handed. From what I saw I suspect the pertinent info and the punchline could be condensed down to two minutes not half an hour. Jesus Christ.
And the points made in those two minutes could be read in <30s.
There has to be a good reason before I start to watch any video.
-
.../
I do have to wonder if you watched that video and took in any of the points made..
I started to watch and the ADD kicked in. FFowared a few times. Still came away empty handed. From what I saw I suspect the pertinent info and the punchline could be condensed down to two minutes not half an hour. Jesus Christ.
And the points made in those two minutes could be read in <30s.
There has to be a good reason before I start to watch any video.
I failed to mention that I did go into the y/t video description.
The first two paragraphs:
172,525 views Premiered 15 hours ago Visit https://80000hours.org/notjustbikes for free advice and information about finding a career that provides an opportunity to have a positive impact on the world. Sign up to their newsletter today.
Crossing the street should be safe, convenient, and easy, but it isn't. And that's because in the US and Canada, the roads are designed for exactly one purpose: to move lots of cars as quickly as possible.
I'm not attacking the OP, but FMD! |O
-
A real issue in the US (some states, at least) is that it is only relatively recently that pedestrians have the right of way in pedestrian crossings (without lights).
Drivers are simply not used to that, and you often see cars bombing through crossings when they should have stopped... thankfully, pedestrians are wise enough not to walk out unless they see the cars are stopping, but still....
-
A real issue in the US (some states, at least) is that it is only relatively recently that pedestrians have the right of way in pedestrian crossings (without lights).
Drivers are simply not used to that, and you often see cars bombing through crossings when they should have stopped... thankfully, pedestrians are wise enough not to walk out unless they see the cars are stopping, but still....
Do you happen to know which states? To my knowledge pedestrians have always had the right of way, although that doesn't mean some idiot drivers are going to be paying attention and actually yield to them.
-
It's just the problem with car centric planning: It isn't *bad* to use a car when needed, but it's bad to design a city in such a way that it's bloody hard to use anything *but* a car. NotJustBikes has some fantastic videos on this. And it's the older European cities that got this right: London, Amsterdam, Prague, Berlin... They still have car infrastructure, but most people use buses/bikes/trains/scooters in those cities. If London had only cars and buses, you can bet that it would be even more of a gridlocked mess.
Most American towns experienced huge post WWII growth spurts, with the middle class booming and demanding a huge detached house with two car driveway on a sprawling surburban estate. These towns don't usually have massive traffic issues (except maybe downtown), because there just isn't the space for the traffic. But they do have insane infrastructure requirements per person. Just compare the density of e.g. suburban Dallas to suburban London (anything within the M25 but outside of Zone 3 is 'suburban' for London, mostly houses with small shopping and business districts scattered about) and you will see the difference. It's going to bankrupt many US cities eventually, because the growth will stop, and there will be not enough tax income to pay for the huge 6 lane 'stroads' everywhere.
I don't think that will be a problem. With property taxes what they are and rising constantly with land values and the number of people already here it should be no problem to pay for the roads. The problem is that growth keeps occurring even when there is not really space for it. They keep trying to cram more and more houses into the suburbs and it's turning things into a mess. I really wish the population density would drop to about what it was in the 1980s. I love the suburban single family home environment and loathe high density cities. I recognize the need for them but a city like New York or London is about the last place in the civilized world I'd want to live.
-
(tom66 posted a few posts back).
Thanks, tom66, for mentioning the non-inclusive nature of the automobile industry, generally, towards those who can't drive, or can't afford (the insurance and maintainance).
Actually, I've been watching, with rising apprehension, how the whole 'Google...SIGN-IN' required thing, for everything from doctor's appointments to buying donuts, (OK, I exaggerated that last one).
So, as I watched BART commuter train expansion, nearby, I felt it was time, 2009, to give up my car. I hated driving, so walking a lot anyway, and with an expensive and 'unknown' maintainance break-down, it was time. So, I donated the car, and been reliant on Taxis, some, but mostly transit.
That whole market forces thing is just too compelling, and like I stated, now that same source dynamic is occuring with on-line required, now.
OK, now, but can we get some 'REAL' competition...or No ?
-
I don't think that will be a problem. With property taxes what they are and rising constantly with land values and the number of people already here it should be no problem to pay for the roads. The problem is that growth keeps occurring even when there is not really space for it. They keep trying to cram more and more houses into the suburbs and it's turning things into a mess. I really wish the population density would drop to about what it was in the 1980s. I love the suburban single family home environment and loathe high density cities. I recognize the need for them but a city like New York or London is about the last place in the civilized world I'd want to live.
I do like a big home, but there's no reason it needs to be built like suburbia.
I bought a house recently, which is 10 minutes walk from a few convenience stores, takeaways and about 15 from the actual centre of town walking, less than 5 on a bike. It's a detached house, it has a large garden and driveway, and for a British home it's pretty decently sized (not American size, but those are uncommon here anyway.) It's like this because it was built in the 30's and the environment evolved around it, rather than it being planned as part of a massive estate.
The problem is that you see so many estates where it's literally just identikit house one after another after another. And then nothing but huge Wal-Marts with parking for 1,000 cars to serve them. The whole environment is actually hostile to walking. Many of these surburban neighbourhoods have no cut-throughs, to allow for quick travel, you have to walk around the roads. (This is usually because a fear of alleyways is that they will attract crime, but statistically there's very little evidence for this. And there's no reason the paths have to be small -- they can be large green spaces with footpaths with good visibility.) And even once you leave, you likely walk straight onto a four-lane dual carriageway type road with a 45+ mph speed "limit". Those roads are just unpleasant to walk along. They're loud, polluted, cars kick up stones and other crap, and kinda scary if the footpath is small. Cycling is also often, at best, accommodated by a small painted bike lane, which offers barely any protection to the cyclist compared to cycling in the lane.
These areas are built to be dependent upon the car; if you don't have a car, you pretty much can't live there. The stroads (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad) that link them split up neighbourhoods, and limit pedestrian traffic.
Compare, for instance, Toronto's central single-family homes:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@43.678284,-79.3879489,3a,75y,94.49h,93.64t/data= (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@43.678284,-79.3879489,3a,75y,94.49h,93.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-lFOjMlMaVIfULFA43qOfg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
to a modern-ish Colorado single family home sprawl:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.0486078,-105.2522135,3a,60y,2.97h,86.25t/data= (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.0486078,-105.2522135,3a,60y,2.97h,86.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siSY2XRRusVcrggvJbc8PtQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
They look more or less the same from the street, but go to the map, and see that in the Toronto case, the houses are built adjacent useful infrastructure; there's light rail (x2), a nearby town centre, a park to walk the dog... Whereas in Colorado, there's... nothing. Well, not unless you get in your car.
That's the problem with suburbia more than anything else. If you have the density, it's self-funding. Think about all of the tax revenue those businesses bring in. The commuter traffic using trains reduces the infrastructure demand on roads. The parks make people feel better about where they live and pollution will be less because people aren't driving everywhere. But it's actually illegal to build places like that area in Toronto in many cities, because zoning laws mean that an area is "just housing" or "just commercial".
-
You'd think that, however for whatever reason living in a dense city tends to be far more expensive, it never made any sense to me but you can typically get a detached house in the suburbs for the price of a smaller condominium in a high rise in the city. To each their own but I like the suburbs, they tend to be isolated from the hustle, bustle, noise and crime of the cities, and it's not a big deal to take a car to a park & ride or city center. The USA is huge and spread out so you pretty much need a car anyway, it would take hours to get from one city to another by transit, the way it's set up the bus only really works to go between the city and the suburbs or from one part of the city to another. There are parks in many of our suburbs, there's one just around the corner from my house. I can also walk from here to the downtown area of the small city I live on the edge. In practice I usually drive though because if I go somewhere I'm often picking up a bunch of stuff I don't want to carry or I'm in a hurry. I can walk in 45 minutes or I can hop in my car and get there in 5. I will say I can't stand those cookie cutter developments where all the houses are identical. My suburb is from the era where there were dozens of plans to choose from and most of the houses are different. There is one other on my street that is identical but a mirror image of mine but the rest are different. There is no HOA so the houses are all different colors with all different landscaping, I like it.
-
I hate crosswalks, that flag one definitely takes the cake for worst crosswalk though.
Problem is its so damn expensive to install stop lights, around $150,000 here.
Recently person was hit and killed near a fairly popular crossing with no crosswalk, thankfully they realized painting lines on the road would do f-all, so they put in a solar powered crosswalk station. I believe the cost of those is around $20,000. Panels are fairly small, maybe 40x40cm on each side of the road, should be more than enough power if they have a decent sized LiFe battery.
Would like to see more of the solar lights being used.
-
I read somewhere a couple years ago, that the pedestrian crossing button on many streets doesn't do anything at all - it isn't wired in. It's simply there to give the pedestrian some "sense of control" so they will wait after they push the button (thinking the system has accepted their request) and not cross early. :-//
-
What's the point?
-
I read somewhere a couple years ago, that the pedestrian crossing button on many streets doesn't do anything at all - it isn't wired in. It's simply there to give the pedestrian some "sense of control" so they will wait after they push the button (thinking the system has accepted their request) and not cross early. :-//
What's the point?
Yes, some are some aren't.
If the light is on a fixed cycle, its going to change in X minutes anyway, and that X minutes might be specifically synced to optimize traffic. So having the button change the timing would not be good.
Having the walk button there means, if they wanted to change the button response at a later date they could. Probably reduces the chances of people running across too, if they think their press sped things up?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ever-wonder-why-this-button-doesn-t-always-work-we-ve-got-the-answer-1.3832244 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ever-wonder-why-this-button-doesn-t-always-work-we-ve-got-the-answer-1.3832244)
-
You'd think that, however for whatever reason living in a dense city tends to be far more expensive, it never made any sense to me but you can typically get a detached house in the suburbs for the price of a smaller condominium in a high rise in the city. To each their own but I like the suburbs, they tend to be isolated from the hustle, bustle, noise and crime of the cities, and it's not a big deal to take a car to a park & ride or city center. The USA is huge and spread out so you pretty much need a car anyway, it would take hours to get from one city to another by transit, the way it's set up the bus only really works to go between the city and the suburbs or from one part of the city to another. There are parks in many of our suburbs, there's one just around the corner from my house. I can also walk from here to the downtown area of the small city I live on the edge. In practice I usually drive though because if I go somewhere I'm often picking up a bunch of stuff I don't want to carry or I'm in a hurry. I can walk in 45 minutes or I can hop in my car and get there in 5. I will say I can't stand those cookie cutter developments where all the houses are identical. My suburb is from the era where there were dozens of plans to choose from and most of the houses are different. There is one other on my street that is identical but a mirror image of mine but the rest are different. There is no HOA so the houses are all different colors with all different landscaping, I like it.
But that's the problem: Cars are necessary for many, but we don't have to make them necessary for everyday life. I don't think you'll ever get Americans to willingly give up their cars, but if they could walk to the shops, or get to work on a train, then there would be massive secondary benefits. You'd have less air pollution, a generally healthier population (I think the US health department recommends 30 minutes of light exercise per day - walking to and from the metro station compared to driving easily provides that) and people would be happier - there's a lot of evidence to show how stressed driving makes people. Road fatalities would also be lower and it'd be more pleasant to drive when you need because everyone is there for a reason rather than driving because there is no viable alternative.
A 45 minute walk isn't the worst case, there are many suburban developments (identikit style or not) that have no or virtually no pedestrian destinations for hours of walking. We should be building mixed-zone cities. It doesn't mean doing away with single family homes, but it does mean that the idea of one single family home after another will disappear as a concept. Instead, it will be a mix. You will have higher density homes, single family homes, condos, and businesses all in one area.
-
A real issue in the US (some states, at least) is that it is only relatively recently that pedestrians have the right of way in pedestrian crossings (without lights).
Drivers are simply not used to that, and you often see cars bombing through crossings when they should have stopped... thankfully, pedestrians are wise enough not to walk out unless they see the cars are stopping, but still....
I don’t think it’s ever been the case in USA that pedestrians didn't have the right of way at unsignaled crosswalks. But it’s so poorly enforced that many drivers think they have automatic right of way. (That of course begs the question of what the point of a crosswalk would be…)
-
soon batman will begin using cars like he doent have superpowers
-
A real issue in the US (some states, at least) is that it is only relatively recently that pedestrians have the right of way in pedestrian crossings (without lights).
Drivers are simply not used to that, and you often see cars bombing through crossings when they should have stopped... thankfully, pedestrians are wise enough not to walk out unless they see the cars are stopping, but still....
Do you happen to know which states? To my knowledge pedestrians have always had the right of way, although that doesn't mean some idiot drivers are going to be paying attention and actually yield to them.
It is definitely relatively recent in CT. 2021?
" The newly enacted law requires drivers to slow down or stop under the following limited circumstances:
If the pedestrian is within any portion of the crosswalk;
If by stepping to the curb at the crosswalk entrance, the pedestrian indicates an intent to cross by raising a hand or arm to oncoming traffic; and
If the pedestrian signals an intent to cross by moving any body part or extension of a body part into the crosswalk including a leashed dog, stroller, wheelchair, cane or walking stick.
This legislation was enacted in part because of the increase in pedestrian injuries and fatalities occurring in crosswalks. It has been estimated that there was a 55% increase in the number of pedestrian deaths for the 10-year period ending in 2018."
-
[ ... ]
But that's the problem: Cars are necessary for many, but we don't have to make them necessary for everyday life. I don't think you'll ever get Americans to willingly give up their cars, but if they could walk to the shops, or get to work on a train, then there would be massive secondary benefits.
[ ... ]
A 45 minute walk isn't the worst case, there are many suburban developments (identikit style or not) that have no or virtually no pedestrian destinations for hours of walking.
[ ... ]
America is very different from Europe (where I have spend a good amount of time) and presumably England. Many live outside of large cities (> 100K residence). I had spend some time in places where you wont see a soul in a 45 minutes walk. Even the nearest police station was around 30 minutes drive away. If you don't own a car in those places, you don't get to do anything.
In my State, we do have pedestrians always having the right of way on city/town roads. Highways (and county roads) are exceptions. Whenever exceptions are posted, the posted rules would be the ones to follow.
This pedestrians always having right of way is good and bad. It encourages jaywalking making accidents more likely.
Now the electronics related part: I would not be surprised if someday your phone will ring/vibrate telling you that you crossed outside of designated crossings and with a link to pay your jaywalking ticket...
Unrelated but will benefit you to know:
Towns are always looking for $. New drivers and visitors to the USA be aware, driving through small towns, good to look out for speed traps and stern traffic law enforcement (such as, intruding on to the solid-white line that marks separate lane from road shoulder or turning without turn signal types of minor things). Traffic tickets are significant revenue contributor for some small towns. You could fight the ticket, but court dates/time would be very early like 7:30am or some such. So, instead of taking a morning off from work and wake up way earlier than usual to drive hours back to that town to fight the darn ticket, you simply pay it.
Very often, you are going through a town with 20 or 25 MPH zone. As you are leaving town, you see a big 50 MPH sign a hundred feet or so ahead right after the traffic light. The light turn green and you see the 50 MPH sign just ahead, so you accelerate out of the traffic light accordingly. As you past the sign, a traffic cop pull you over... Well, 50 MPH doesn't start until after the sign, so, you are still at the 20/25 mph limit. The cops knows many would begin accelerating to the next sign (50 MPH) exceeding the 20/25 posted well before reaching the sign. That is a revenue collection spot for them.
-
atleast flags cant run out of electricity
A local town (Sausalito) has these flags at some intersections. No one uses them.
-
It is definitely relatively recent in CT. 2021?
" The newly enacted law requires drivers to slow down or stop under the following limited circumstances:
If the pedestrian is within any portion of the crosswalk;
If by stepping to the curb at the crosswalk entrance, the pedestrian indicates an intent to cross by raising a hand or arm to oncoming traffic; and
If the pedestrian signals an intent to cross by moving any body part or extension of a body part into the crosswalk including a leashed dog, stroller, wheelchair, cane or walking stick.
This legislation was enacted in part because of the increase in pedestrian injuries and fatalities occurring in crosswalks. It has been estimated that there was a 55% increase in the number of pedestrian deaths for the 10-year period ending in 2018."
I wonder what the actual law was prior to that? I was under the impression that if a person was in the crosswalk they had the right of way and if a car hits them the driver is at fault. This sounds like it may be bolstering the existing law to cover other scenarios, such as requiring a driver to stop if a pedestrian is intending to cross. Personally when I'm walking I try to wait for a gap where a minimal number of cars will have to stop for me.
-
This pedestrians always having right of way is good and bad. It encourages jaywalking making accidents more likely.
Jaywalking has been a huge problem in downtown Seattle, to the point where I go way out of my way to not drive down there at all. Many times cars will be trying to turn while pedestrians are streaming across the crosswalk ignoring the Don't Walk signal. It would all work so much more smoothly if everyone obeyed the signals and crossed the street at designated crosswalks. Then you have cyclists who want to have their cake and eat it too. They often ride on the road and insist that cars share it, but then they ignore signals and blow through lights or ride onto the sidewalk and across crosswalks while the signal for cars is red.
-
This pedestrians always having right of way is good and bad. It encourages jaywalking making accidents more likely.
Rubbish.
We have no concept of jaywalking, and pedestrians have priority over vehicles. And yet, we have no problem with people getting mowed down left right and centre because they're darting out into the road to try and cross without thought.
-
It is definitely relatively recent in CT. 2021?
" The newly enacted law requires drivers to slow down or stop under the following limited circumstances:
If the pedestrian is within any portion of the crosswalk;
If by stepping to the curb at the crosswalk entrance, the pedestrian indicates an intent to cross by raising a hand or arm to oncoming traffic; and
If the pedestrian signals an intent to cross by moving any body part or extension of a body part into the crosswalk including a leashed dog, stroller, wheelchair, cane or walking stick.
This legislation was enacted in part because of the increase in pedestrian injuries and fatalities occurring in crosswalks. It has been estimated that there was a 55% increase in the number of pedestrian deaths for the 10-year period ending in 2018."
I wonder what the actual law was prior to that? I was under the impression that if a person was in the crosswalk they had the right of way and if a car hits them the driver is at fault. This sounds like it may be bolstering the existing law to cover other scenarios, such as requiring a driver to stop if a pedestrian is intending to cross. Personally when I'm walking I try to wait for a gap where a minimal number of cars will have to stop for me.
Maybe this is just a CT thing. Every crosswalk now has new signs "Yield to pedestrians in crosswalk". Maybe it was always the case, but nobody ever did it...
-
I wonder what the actual law was prior to that? I was under the impression that if a person was in the crosswalk they had the right of way and if a car hits them the driver is at fault. This sounds like it may be bolstering the existing law to cover other scenarios, such as requiring a driver to stop if a pedestrian is intending to cross. Personally when I'm walking I try to wait for a gap where a minimal number of cars will have to stop for me.
They just tweaked the law as you say: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/2016-R-0179.htm (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/2016-R-0179.htm)
Connecticut's crosswalk law has been changed several times. Starting in 1978, Connecticut law required drivers to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, provided the pedestrian was in the half of the road in which the vehicle was driving or crossing to it from the opposite side. The pedestrian also had to be approaching so quickly, or be so close to the portion of the roadway on which the vehicle was traveling, that he or she “was in reasonable danger of being struck” (PA 78-309).
-
atleast flags cant run out of electricity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY)
You expect me to spend 31 minutes watching a video just to find out WTF you're talking about?
-
Excellent video. We need more sensors and smart controls in Canada. It’s normal to wait at a red light when there is no traffic in the other direction. Too many people are way, way too distracted and it is getting worse by the day. Some pedestrian's will step into the street the moment the light turns green without even looking (hoodie up and ear buds in). All in all it’s a recipe for disaster.
-
I wonder what the actual law was prior to that? I was under the impression that if a person was in the crosswalk they had the right of way and if a car hits them the driver is at fault. This sounds like it may be bolstering the existing law to cover other scenarios, such as requiring a driver to stop if a pedestrian is intending to cross. Personally when I'm walking I try to wait for a gap where a minimal number of cars will have to stop for me.
They just tweaked the law as you say: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/2016-R-0179.htm (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/2016-R-0179.htm)
Connecticut's crosswalk law has been changed several times. Starting in 1978, Connecticut law required drivers to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, provided the pedestrian was in the half of the road in which the vehicle was driving or crossing to it from the opposite side. The pedestrian also had to be approaching so quickly, or be so close to the portion of the roadway on which the vehicle was traveling, that he or she “was in reasonable danger of being struck” (PA 78-309).
Hahaha so previously you had to stop if the pedestrian was in danger of being struck... - That has definitely changed for the better!
-
Hahaha so previously you had to stop if the pedestrian was in danger of being struck... - That has definitely changed for the better!
The law sometimes goes too far though. We have that same requirement to stop if a pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk or even standing near it and that's annoying. Even on a road where there is an island in the middle of two lanes, a pedestrian can walk across your lane, cross the island and you're supposed to stay stopped there until they have completely cleared the road which is annoying because once they've crossed your lane they are out of danger from you.
-
This pedestrians always having right of way is good and bad. It encourages jaywalking making accidents more likely.
Rubbish.
We have no concept of jaywalking, and pedestrians have priority over vehicles. And yet, we have no problem with people getting mowed down left right and centre because they're darting out into the road to try and cross without thought.
Terrorist acts not withstanding, folks here doesn't really get mowed down just because they cross illegally or darting in and out. Accident do occur and when they jaywalk, and jaywalkers are endangering themselves.
We are getting less civil these days. While I just came out of a cobbler store in a near by town, I saw a guy who suddenly darted into moving traffic without looking and not at designated crossing. The driver managed to stop inches from this fellow and this fellow proceeded to angrily bang on the car's hood. The jaywalker was playing chicken with his own life. Being the one that suddenly darted into moving traffic, he had no right to be angry. Secretly and in one of my "less than a gentlemen" moment, I thought: too bad he didn't get hit, it would have served him right to spend sometime on a wheelchair.
-
Hahaha so previously you had to stop if the pedestrian was in danger of being struck... - That has definitely changed for the better!
The law sometimes goes too far though. We have that same requirement to stop if a pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk or even standing near it and that's annoying. Even on a road where there is an island in the middle of two lanes, a pedestrian can walk across your lane, cross the island and you're supposed to stay stopped there until they have completely cleared the road which is annoying because once they've crossed your lane they are out of danger from you.
Looking at actual traffic, few pedestrians seem to have any expectation that cars will stop for them... they typically wait until cars actually do stop. Probably a good idea, as something like 50% of drivers seem to be still using the "old" rules...
-
Looking at actual traffic, few pedestrians seem to have any expectation that cars will stop for them... they typically wait until cars actually do stop. Probably a good idea, as something like 50% of drivers seem to be still using the "old" rules...
I always wait. I was nearly mowed down several years ago at a crosswalk that had flashing lights and everything. I was about to step off the curb when a car rolled right through and I watched as the driver was looking down at a smartphone in their lap. I had just come out of a store and wished I had a shopping cart to simply let go of and let it roll across in front of the car.
-
Many drivers can't see anything smaller than a semitruck, so smart pedestrians, bicycle, and motorcycle riders should always assume they're not seen and behave accordingly.
-
This pedestrians always having right of way is good and bad. It encourages jaywalking making accidents more likely.
Rubbish.
We have no concept of jaywalking, and pedestrians have priority over vehicles. And yet, we have no problem with people getting mowed down left right and centre because they're darting out into the road to try and cross without thought.
Terrorist acts not withstanding, folks here doesn't really get mowed down just because they cross illegally or darting in and out. Accident do occur and when they jaywalk, and jaywalkers are endangering themselves.
And yet again, nobody else has these problems. Perhaps 'jaywalking' (a term invented to criminalize people using their legs, not paying car companies) isn't the issue?
-
And yet again, nobody else has these problems. Perhaps 'jaywalking' (a term invented to criminalize people using their legs, not paying car companies) isn't the issue?
Well I'm glad that people in your region are superior and enlightened and do not have this problem, not everyone is so fortunate. Here jaywalking is a serious problem and frequently results in accidents. Pedestrians often ignore the signals and walk in every which way, leaving drivers stuck in the middle of intersections as pedestrians end up blocking both the entry and exit to the intersection while the driver has a green light. Other times pedestrians will dart across the street in some random location that is not a designated crosswalk, especially annoying when there is a crosswalk nearby. People driving cars don't expect pedestrians to be in the middle of the road because the law requires using designated crosswalks where they are available. Car and pedestrian traffic can't coexist without some sort of rules and everyone being on the same page. This is especially true in dense urban environments, chaos is not safe for anyone. People behaving in unexpected ways and not following the agreed upon rules is a recipe for accidents. Surely you can agree that places like freeways (motorways) and busy high speed arterials are not a place pedestrians should be.
-
This pedestrians always having right of way is good and bad. It encourages jaywalking making accidents more likely.
Rubbish.
We have no concept of jaywalking, and pedestrians have priority over vehicles. And yet, we have no problem with people getting mowed down left right and centre because they're darting out into the road to try and cross without thought.
Terrorist acts not withstanding, folks here doesn't really get mowed down just because they cross illegally or darting in and out. Accident do occur and when they jaywalk, and jaywalkers are endangering themselves.
Classic "road is for cars, must be the pedestrians fault" mentality, when in fact its the other way around with pedestrians using crosswalks:
https://www.triumphlaw.com/personal-injury/pedestrian-accident/crosswalk-accidents/ (https://www.triumphlaw.com/personal-injury/pedestrian-accident/crosswalk-accidents/)
Such a common issue that lawyers target that specific cohort/market.
-
Pedestrians often ignore the signals and walk in every which way, leaving drivers stuck in the middle of intersections as pedestrians end up blocking both the entry and exit to the intersection while the driver has a green light.
Depends how you read the road rules (for your non-specified jurisdiction). In both California and Australia a driver at a set of traffic lights is not supposed to enter unless they can leave the intersection, so anyone becoming stranded/stuck is entirely their own fault. Is that enforced? nope, but it is a rule that prevents your "problem".
-
Here jaywalking is a serious problem
you should try crossing the road in Vietnam ,if you dont jaywalk you aint gonna get across.
-
My two cents (as a former police officer)...
The issue of left turn on red (or right turn in other countries) is solved simply by enforcing that vehicles give way to pedestrians when turning into a road. However giving pedestrians universal right-of-way creates its own set of problems, for example, if the pedestrian is crossing in a place they shouldn't be. In situations like that where there is a collisions involving a pedestrian, the person crossing in the wrong place/wrong time could be deemed at fault.
In Australia, the road rules are a standard set of rules which apply to the entire country, there are some exceptions though where states have implemented their own additional rules to cater for special circumstances (in Victoria, they have the "hook turn" which is essentially turning right from the left lane).
There is a road rule which applies specifically to pedestrians which states "A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or unreasonably obstruct the path of a driver".
A prime example of that was a collision that I investigated years ago where a pedestrian stepped out onto the roadway, at a set of traffic lights with a pedestrian crossing, but against the red "don't walk" signal. Thankfully she only suffered minor injuries, but I did issue the pedestrian an infringement notice. The driver was not liable for any costs.
Drivers do have responsibilities and need to take care, especially around crossings and intersections, but they aren't liable for people's stupidity in other circumstances.
-
Here jaywalking is a serious problem
you should try crossing the road in Vietnam ,if you dont jaywalk you aint gonna get across.
Or the position from many US police/prosecutors: there was a marked crossing a half a mile along the road, pedestrians must use the detour provided or be fined.
-
Depends how you read the road rules (for your non-specified jurisdiction). In both California and Australia a driver at a set of traffic lights is not supposed to enter unless they can leave the intersection, so anyone becoming stranded/stuck is entirely their own fault. Is that enforced? nope, but it is a rule that prevents your "problem".
Yeah well that's great, except what are you to do if you enter the intersection on a green light and some pedestrians waltz across the street when the sign says Don't Walk? Are you seriously saying that's the fault of the driver who has the right of way by virtue of a green signal while a pedestrian is breaking the law?
-
Depends how you read the road rules (for your non-specified jurisdiction). In both California and Australia a driver at a set of traffic lights is not supposed to enter unless they can leave the intersection, so anyone becoming stranded/stuck is entirely their own fault. Is that enforced? nope, but it is a rule that prevents your "problem".
Yeah well that's great, except what are you to do if you enter the intersection on a green light and some pedestrians waltz across the street when the sign says Don't Walk? Are you seriously saying that's the fault of the driver who has the right of way by virtue of a green signal while a pedestrian is breaking the law?
Doesnt matter what's stopping you leaving the intersection be that a car, pedestrian, pile of manure, etc. If there isn't a clear exit, you dont pass the stop line.
Pedestrians and car speeds arent such that you could enter an intersection and then come to a stop for a pedestrian newly entering the road:
a pedestrian would have been making a clear entry to the crossing before turning for there to be reaction and braking distance to pull up to a stop, or
you'd be passing/swerving around them (closely) as they step out into the road
This happens regardless of the lamp facing the pedestrian (which often isn't visible to opposing drivers) and drivers have to look across the intersection for any traffic/obstruction before proceeding. Green lights are shown to drivers not as a go-go-everything clear, but as an indication that they may be able to proceed (and need to check other restrictions).
Sounds like you're just a bad driver who doesnt want the effort of having to look for other road users. Like people who cant safely use an unprotected turn across oncoming traffic (both parties are shown green lights, but there is still a need to give way).
-
Pedestrians and car speeds arent such that you could enter an intersection and then come to a stop for a pedestrian newly entering the road:
a pedestrian would have been making a clear entry to the crossing before turning for there to be reaction and braking distance to pull up to a stop, or
you'd be passing/swerving around them (closely) as they step out into the road
This happens regardless of the lamp facing the pedestrian (which often isn't visible to opposing drivers) and drivers have to look across the intersection for any traffic/obstruction before proceeding. Green lights are shown to drivers not as a go-go-everything clear, but as an indication that they may be able to proceed (and need to check other restrictions).
Sounds like you're just a bad driver who doesnt want the effort of having to look for other road users. Like people who cant safely use an unprotected turn across oncoming traffic (both parties are shown green lights, but there is still a need to give way).
I beg to differ, I see it all the time, car starts rolling forward into the intersection and pedestrians start streaming across the crosswalk on the other side of the street after the car is already in the intersection. I'm not sure you grasp the nature of dense urban traffic in an overpopulated major city with narrow streets that mostly lack turn lanes.
I think accusing me of being a bad driver is rude, uncalled for, and frankly ridiculous. For what it's worth I refuse to drive in downtown Seattle because doing so is a nightmare so I bus into the office when I go. I see this happen most often as a pedestrian myself, although unlike many I respect the crossing signs and don't jaywalk. Now if you think you are such a fantastically skilled high and mighty driver that you won't have trouble, I'd encourage you to visit the region and show us all how it's done. I'd wager that within an hour you'd get stuck in the middle of an intersection at least once just as I've described or stuck gridlocked unable to move while some jerk behind you is honking and road raging because you've sat through 4 green lights without moving because there is some pedestrian who could conceivably dart across the street because there are ALWAYS pedestrians all over the place throughout most of the days.
-
For what it's worth I refuse to drive in downtown Seattle because doing so is a nightmare so I bus into the office when I go. I see this happen most often as a pedestrian myself
Well done creating imaginary argument...
Depends how you read the road rules (for your non-specified jurisdiction). In both California and Australia a driver at a set of traffic lights is not supposed to enter unless they can leave the intersection, so anyone becoming stranded/stuck is entirely their own fault. Is that enforced? nope, but it is a rule that prevents your "problem".
So people in some other jurisdiction where those rules dont apply, dont follow them.... AMAZING!
-
Pedestrians often ignore the signals and walk in every which way, leaving drivers stuck in the middle of intersections as pedestrians end up blocking both the entry and exit to the intersection while the driver has a green light.
Depends how you read the road rules (for your non-specified jurisdiction). In both California and Australia a driver at a set of traffic lights is not supposed to enter unless they can leave the intersection, so anyone becoming stranded/stuck is entirely their own fault. Is that enforced? nope, but it is a rule that prevents your "problem".
That's actually not true. Drivers are permitted and in some cases required to enter the intersection when about to make a left or right turn. You only stop at the stop line (in the case of most traffic lights, the first line in the direction of travel) when you are given an amber or red signal, or where a stop sign applies.
When you get a green signal, flashing amber or no signal at all, you may enter the intersection and give way (as required) depending on the type of intersection.
If you have already entered an intersection and the traffic signal turns red before you have had a chance to turn, you are permitted to complete the turn when is it safe to do so (Rule 61(5) of the Australian Road Rules).
-
Pedestrians often ignore the signals and walk in every which way, leaving drivers stuck in the middle of intersections as pedestrians end up blocking both the entry and exit to the intersection while the driver has a green light.
Depends how you read the road rules (for your non-specified jurisdiction). In both California and Australia a driver at a set of traffic lights is not supposed to enter unless they can leave the intersection, so anyone becoming stranded/stuck is entirely their own fault. Is that enforced? nope, but it is a rule that prevents your "problem".
That's actually not true. Drivers are permitted and in some cases required to enter the intersection when about to make a left or right turn. You only stop at the stop line (in the case of most traffic lights, the first line in the direction of travel) when you are given an amber or red signal, or where a stop sign applies.
When you get a green signal, flashing amber or no signal at all, you may enter the intersection and give way (as required) depending on the type of intersection.
If you have already entered an intersection and the traffic signal turns red before you have had a chance to turn, you are permitted to complete the turn when is it safe to do so (Rule 61(5) of the Australian Road Rules).
Lol, given your previous post with its slightly off/outdated information I guessed you would come in with the old version on this.
62 GIVING WAY WHEN TURNING AT AN INTERSECTION WITH TRAFFIC LIGHTS
(1) A driver turning at an intersection with traffic lights must give way to--
(a) any pedestrian at or near the intersection who is crossing the road the driver is entering, ...
Even turning at traffic lights, arriving at an intersection drivers must be ready to stop and give way.
128 ENTERING BLOCKED INTERSECTIONS
A driver must not enter an intersection if the driver cannot drive through the intersection because the intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, is blocked.
Examples : The intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, may be blocked by congested traffic, a disabled vehicle, a collision between vehicles or between a vehicle and a pedestrian, or by a fallen load on the road.
So do show us the rule you claim requires a driver to enter an intersection (when they wouldn't be able to leave or not).... your 61(5):
(5) If the traffic lights or traffic arrows (as the case may be) change to yellow or red while the driver is stopped and the driver has entered the intersection, the driver must leave the intersection as soon as the driver can do so safely.
Requires that the driver entered the intersection legally, so from 128 the exit was clear. Very few situations would have the exit become blocked after it was clear (not impossible), and there was no requirement to enter.
What's enforced is not always what the law actually says, particularly when the law changes.
And just like you jumped with obstructing traffic by pedestrians, there is a almost identical rule for drivers:
125 UNREASONABLY OBSTRUCTING DRIVERS OR PEDESTRIANS
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian.
-
Lol, given your previous post with its slightly off/outdated information I guessed you would come in with the old version on this.
Linked for your information: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-2014-0758#sec.61
This is the current enforceable version as at 29/07/2022.
Obviously to be read in conjunction with the relevant rules depending on the circumstances and intersection.
It's a common mistake people make a set of traffic lights... the correct way (and the way the roads authorities will teach) is when you are given a signal to turn at a set of traffic lights, you should enter the intersection and give way to on-coming traffic (also pedestrians if there are any crossing at the road you are entering). If the light changed to red before you have had a chance to turn, you should complete your turn if/when it is safe to do so.
If it is not safe to proceed, you are permitted to stop and wait beyond the stop line.
So do show us the rule you claim requires a driver to enter an intersection (when they wouldn't be able to leave or not)
You could start with Rules 27, 28, 31, 32 (and in the cases of the hook turn, Rule 34).
Here's a snippet that applies to this particular rule:
32 Starting a right turn from a multi-lane road
(1) A driver turning right at an intersection from a multi-lane road must approach and enter the intersection...
Obviously there is more to this rule and doesn't apply in every circumstance. Legislation is (mostly) not designed to be read in isolation. There are always exceptions and other rules which take precedence, depending on where you are, the type of road, type of intersection, markings, signage etc... etc...
This is why it's important for people to study and understand the road rules, not just assume what they have been doing for many years (or what they've been told) is correct.
I know there might be some nuances where a single word can make all the difference, but that's law for you. As I said, 14 years in the job (some of that in highway patrol), I think I have a fair idea (even if I can't quote the road rules off the top of my head word-for-word).
-
So do show us the rule you claim requires a driver to enter an intersection (when they wouldn't be able to leave or not)
You could start with Rules 27, 28, 31, 32 (and in the cases of the hook turn, Rule 34).
Here's a snippet that applies to this particular rule:
32 Starting a right turn from a multi-lane road
(1) A driver turning right at an intersection from a multi-lane road must approach and enter the intersection...
Taking that quote wildly out of context! Lets add the missing bit...
32 Starting a right turn from a multi-lane road
(1) A driver turning right at an intersection from a multi-lane road must approach and enter the intersection from within the right lane unless--
The rule describes what the driver must do on approach and entering, not obliging them to enter.
I know there might be some nuances where a single word can make all the difference, but that's law for you. As I said, 14 years in the job (some of that in highway patrol), I think I have a fair idea (even if I can't quote the road rules off the top of my head word-for-word).
You have ingrained in you what is/was enforced and "normalised" not what the law actually is. You talk about "safe to proceed" when the point I am discussing is not just is it safe to enter, but whether the driver can exit the intersection. Which is its own standalone rule and consistent with the other road rules. There is no requirement to enter an intersection, and none that overrides the law obliging people to not enter an intersection they cannot exit.
-
In a previous century, I failed a driving test for not moving into the intersection under the green but not green right arrow situation.
-
You have ingrained in you what is/was enforced and "normalised" not what the law actually is. You talk about "safe to proceed" when the point I am discussing is not just is it safe to enter, but whether the driver can exit the intersection. Which is its own standalone rule and consistent with the other road rules. There is no requirement to enter an intersection, and none that overrides the law obliging people to not enter an intersection they cannot exit.
I have ingrained in me the correct way of driving defensively. Not interpreting the rules how I see fit. I was taught from a very young age how to read, understand and apply the road rules. Those skills were only further enhanced by paying for additional driver training when I was younger, plus my experience within the emergency services (not to mention, I was also a police driver trainer). I'm not pretending to be the worlds best driver and like everyone else, I have made mistakes before, but driving according to the rules is the reason that I've never been involved in an at-fault collision in 20+ years of driving.
Crashes happen when the law isn't followed and people decide to do their own thing or take risks which backfire.
As for "no requirement to enter an intersection", I literally just provided you with legislation that says that's just what you do (in normal circumstances). That's why I emphasised the word must, it wasn't optional. Of course safety overrides everything you do as a driver (which is why legislation is written the way it is), but 99.9% of the time when you're driving on a road and nothing unusual it's going on, it's safe to follow the rules to the letter.
Good driving isn't just about understanding and following the law, but also about being predictable as a driver. Take an intersection controlled by traffic lights for example, if someone is waiting to turn and is given a green signal and doesn't move forward into the intersection, to me, my spidey senses go off and I automatically assume the person in front of me is inexperienced, inattentive, or unpredictable, because that behaviour in that particular circumstance is abnormal.
In a previous century, I failed a driving test for not moving into the intersection under the green but not green right arrow situation.
Yep, because, as we've discussed, moving into the intersection was the correct thing to do, even then.
-
I was taught from a very young age how to read, understand and apply the road rules. Those skills were only further enhanced by paying for additional driver training when I was younger, plus my experience within the emergency services (not to mention, I was also a police driver trainer).
Were taught, under the prevailing rules and standards of the past. But it appears your teaching of how to read and understand is faulty.
As for "no requirement to enter an intersection", I literally just provided you with legislation that says that's just what you do (in normal circumstances). That's why I emphasised the word must, it wasn't optional.
Which you have completely misinterpreted. Lets run it again as a worked example of language:
32 Starting a right turn from a multi-lane road
(1) A driver turning right at an intersection from a multi-lane road must approach and enter the intersection from within the right lane unless--
(A driver) (turning right) at an (intersection (from a multi-lane road)) must (approach and enter the intersection) from (within the right lane) unless--
rearranging that to a more natural phrasing:
Drivers must remain within the right lane on approach and entering an intersection if they are turning right at an intersection with multiple lanes, unless--
the must is not on the action of entering, it is in the situations of both approach and entering that a driver must remain within the right lane
Your comprehension is woeful, but you come back with more bluster and no actual progress. None of this is inconsistent with rule 128 that drivers must not enter an intersection from which they cannot leave (because for instance there are cars or pedestrians in the way blocking the exit)
But hey do link back out to the legislation just to throw shade as if these direct quotes of the road rules arent verbatim... ;)
Linked for your information: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-2014-0758#sec.61
When you are the one taking partial quotes out of context.
-
In a previous century, I failed a driving test for not moving into the intersection under the green but not green right arrow situation.
Absolutely, what used to be the priority (moving into the intersection) has changed (not blocking the intersection).
As an example the current NSW driving test has the specific example:
You will fail if you unreasonably obstruct other vehicles or pedestrians during the test. This includes if you:
enter an intersection without enough space on the other side due to traffic, blocking the intersection as a result
hard for teachers/examiners to reliably create that situation!
While failure to enter an intersection is still assessed but downplayed (not explicitly listed as a standalone rule as above) and left with more judgement for the examiner:
During the test you will be expected to demonstrate smooth, flowing decision making. If you reject safe gaps or unduly stop at intersections when it is clearly safe to proceed, you may fail.
-
We live in Canada and spent too long in a large city (Toronto, 3 million people).
Toronto
Walking even on side streets was often hazardous because there are way too many distracted drivers racing home at 7pm, hungry and probably still thinking about work and their gazillion dollar mortgage as well as all the problems big city life brings with it. Common for a car to pass within a foot of you at 50km/hr on a side street when the road is otherwise empty.
We also have a summer place near a small tourist town in the Laurentians (hilly countryside in Quebec)
St. Jovite
Complete opposite of Toronto and a complete pleasure to walk or drive. When driving and trying to enter a road from say a parking lot, 90% of the time the cars going down the road will yield to you with a little smiling wave, in Toronto they would speed up and shift over to make sure you would not even think about entering.
Walking is similar, they have "crosswalks" but "J-walking" is super common, you make eye contact with the driver, they slow down to give you the 5 seconds it takes to pass in front, a little smile or nod and traffic resumes without skipping a beat.
The dichotomy when transitioning between the two environments surprises me even after 25 years.
-
Walking is similar, they have "crosswalks" but "J-walking" is super common, you make eye contact with the driver, they slow down to give you the 5 seconds it takes to pass in front, a little smile or nod and traffic resumes without skipping a beat.
Wait wait wait, you mean it's possible for people to cross the road without flashing lights, painted crossings, and ten minutes of advance warning to drivers? And that it doesn't actually impact the drivers getting where they're going? Don't tell james_s or Rick Law, you might give them an aneurysm.