Hacker News Reader

Here in Stockholm they got rid of the flashing green man on large intersections (in other words, where the change was most dangerous for pedestrians).

Because cars can always turn through a crossing, this causes near misses and mayhem all the time, but I find generally that a lot of people don’t notice or just accept the car-dominance as a natural thing.

When the kids were small we taught them about these dangerous intersections calling them “surprise-red-man” crossings (sounds better in Swedish).

I’ve never been able to work out the logic of why the flashing green man should disappear on exactly those roads where they’re most needed.

>Because cars can always turn through a crossing, this causes near misses and mayhem all the time, but I find generally that a lot of people don’t notice or just accept the car-dominance as a natural thing.

A big strong person weighs 100kg and is made of soft meat and can deliver close to 1hp at peak performance. A car is made of steel, weighs twenty times as much and has 200 of those horse powers constantly. That's why.

This is also why car drivers respect trucks on the road.

Don't mess with things that can trample you is basic human instinct.

In France there is a time when no one can cross neither cars nor pedestrians after the pedestrian green light to allow people to finish crossing.

If I had to guess, they probably don't want red/yellow/green for pedestrian walkways because it might confuse drivers into thinking that light is for them. I do think an alternative would probably be preferable, I'm just not sure what it would look like.

In the UK, flashing green man means "don't start crossing".

Where I live in the US, red countdown timer means "don't start crossing".

The red countdown timer means run in the US.

No, they are correct, it means "don't start crossing." Not everyone can run, eg, people in wheelchairs or people who need walkers, or able bodied people carrying lots of groceries. Running as a pedestrian is very dangerous. It creates confusion for drivers, it makes you more difficult to see, and it makes it more difficult for you to see if you're running in front of a moving car.

Unless I am actually out for a run, I don't run to cross intersections but blinking hand means "cross with a sense of urgency" to me if I'm not yet crossing but I saw it start blinking and have an idea that it isn't a handful of seconds from changing.

That's not universally correct. A few years ago, in San Francisco (I don't think it was California-wide, but maybe I'm misremembering), the law was changed so that it's legal to even start crossing on a flashing orange, as long as you are safely able to get out of the intersection before the light changes.

(And as of Jan 1 of next year, jaywalking will no longer be an offense in California, so you can cross whenever and wherever you want, as long as it's not dangerous to do so.)

is it really like that?

in europe generally jaywalking is only allowed if there is no marked crossing nearby. crossing at a red light is not jaywalking but a different offence that is still punished.

yep, it's like that in the UK as well. No such concept as jaywalking at all, you can cross right next to a marked crossing when its red if you must. Works on social trust and works well

Jaywalking always seemed like such a weird “crime” to me. I’m surprised I don’t hear about it being abused more.

You are right to feel that way, and I think it helps to picture what life was like when the term showed up. These days we take it as almost an immutable fact that cars are on roads, and people are wherever else they can fit. But back then (1910s) streets in city centers were still commonly unsealed dirt roads. While cars were starting to get popular, they still moved at walking pace, and people using roads were still a mix of adults and kids just walking about, bikes, horse drawn buggies or carts. Looking back at photographs from the time you notice that the roads are just full of foot traffic, they weren't crossing the road, the road was how they got around.

But cars were getting faster and more dangerous, and it was no longer compatible to have mixed traffic. Rather than ban cars from cities, we convinced people that actually, it was the car's road afterall and you shouldn't have been there!

During that time the term jay walking came about, and it was used to paint the pedestrians as the one's getting in the way of the automobile driver, rather than it being the automobile that was out of place. If we use a very cynical lens, and I think we should, it was a essentially a marketing campaign from automobile makers.

Yeah as someone from the UK the idea of crossing the road being a crime is mind-blowing, getting around would be intolerable as a pedestrian sticking to crossings.

The term "jaywalking" itself is of US origin. Most of the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't have any offence by that name. While they do tend to have certain traffic regulations prohibiting pedestrians from crossing a road in an unsafe manner, those regulations are generally narrower in scope than many "jaywalking" laws in the US are.

Indeed, as a pedestrian I have just as much right to be in the road (either crossing, or just walking along it) as I would have were I to hop on a bicycle, and more rights than if I was driving a car[1]. Motorways are the exception, where you're not allowed on or beside the road unless you're in a suitable powered vehicle or there's some kind of emergency.

There are various markings that suggest that you probably shouldn't cross, but they aren't enforceable. Cars also have priority in many cases, but priority isn't an excuse for crashing into someone.

[1]: My right to drive a car is limited: I need a license, insurance, and permission from the owner. If I'm driving or riding a bicycle, I need to obey signage -- no jumping red lights, no going the wrong way down one way roads. If I'm walking, I'm perfectly at liberty to walk through a red light if I want to.

On the other hand until very recently, the rules for turning vehicles were less in favour of pedestrians in the UK – drivers were only required to give way for pedestrians that had already started crossing (whereas in Germany the corresponding rule also includes pedestrians that are only *about to cross), and every time I was on holiday in the UK, I found the difference to be indeed noticeable, with drivers executing turns noticeable more "aggressive".

Relatively recently, that rule was changed in the UK, though how fast that affects actual driving behaviour remains to be seen. Meanwhile in Germany though crossing against as a pedestrian still remains illegal – the only mitigating circumstance is that unlike for vehicular infractions, the fine for pedestrians hasn't been increased and for now remains a nominal 5 € (10 € with endangerment).

Edit: Actually and interestingly the fine is 5 € even in combination with endangerment – 10 € only applies if you're also causing property damage.

I'm sure there's some sort of logic to how these are set up, but I've seen many that have long "countdown" phases even for a very short crossing. It's relatively rare to see a pedestrian light that will stay white for more than a couple seconds. Realistically pedestrians are making a judgment call on whether the seconds remaining seem like enough to let them cross, rather than obeying the flashing-red indication to not start crossing.

"I'm sure there's some sort of logic to how these are set up"

Yeah I think the logic is:

1. Maximize car throughput.

2. A pedestrian is entitled to cross only if they were waiting when the light changed to 'walk', and not if they arrived when other pedestrians were already walking.

Heh, in California (er maybe just San Francisco, can't remember), as of a few years ago, the orange countdown (or just a flashing orange hand) means "go ahead if you think you can make it across safely before the light changes".

And two weeks from now (also in California), legally, you can do whatever the hell you want, even cross on a solid orange hand (or even cross where there is no crosswalk), as long as you do it safely.

"go ahead if you think you can make it across safely before the light changes"

I know that's true in practice, but is it the official meaning?

Some intersections in the US have a countdown timer letting pedestrians and drivers know how soon until the light changes. It seems to help but I'm sure someone who doesn't regularly walk around town has no idea how long it actually takes to cross any given road.

There are some intersections in Sydney that have those, but not many. I guess most of them aren't green long enough to warrant it!

I always like those as a driver. With a green it lets me know how stale the green is. And with a red it lets me know how long I have before I need to be ready for the green (e.g., do I have enough time for a sip of water while waiting?)

Timers are very common in Asia. But the countdown timers for Green to Yellow could be dangerous as most people seeing the timer about to be zero from far and speeds up instead of slowing down. Recently many of the traffic signals in my city have removed countdown timers for Green to Yellow and has kept timer only for Red to Green change.

Long-duration timers are also incompatible with fully traffic-actuated signals and/or public transport priority, because both of those mean that the actual phase sequence that's going to happen can be determined only a few seconds (if even that) in advance. Those kinds of timers you mention in Asia on the other hand require that the phase sequence get fixed at least one signal cycle in advance (i.e. on the order of one or multiple minutes), which is much too long for full traffic actuation and/or public transport priority.

Perhaps it could flash green when it's about to change to red, instead of flashing red?

That's how it works in a lot of countries. The flashing red seems to be an exception.