Driving Through Crosswalks Past Pedestrians

[Green Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by msconnie73

As a pedestrian, this is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves about drivers. Pedestrians have such a small window of opportunity to cross while drivers can (for the most part) turn on a red signal provided it's safe. What really irks me is that while I'm waiting for my signal, the driver starts his turn just when the walk signal appears!

I understand completely. On the other hand, though, I recently was trying to turn left -- on a green turn arrow -- when a couple pedestrians decided to cross the street (their "walk" sign was still red). I had to wait, as did the cars behind me, and by the time the walkers had finished strolling across the street, our arrow was gone and we found ourselves blocking the lanes of oncoming traffic .....

Another time I nearly hit a pedestrian who decided to cross the street at the VERY last minute. The light had just turned green as I approached the crosswalk, and I actually didn't see the pedestrian until the last minute, as she was hidden by an SUV in the lane next to me, which had been waiting for the light to change.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by squeezeboxgal

I understand completely. On the other hand, though, I recently was trying to turn left -- on a green turn arrow -- when a couple pedestrians decided to cross the street (their "walk" sign was still red). I had to wait, as did the cars behind me, and by the time the walkers had finished strolling across the street, our arrow was gone and we found ourselves blocking the lanes of oncoming traffic .....

Another time I nearly hit a pedestrian who decided to cross the street at the VERY last minute. The light had just turned green as I approached the crosswalk, and I actually didn't see the pedestrian until the last minute, as she was hidden by an SUV in the lane next to me, which had been waiting for the light to change.

As I mentioned in an above post, pedestrians do have a responsibility for their own safely and to avoid impeding traffic. It's about common courtesy and it needs to occur on both sides.

[Green Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by msconnie73

As I mentioned in an above post, pedestrians do have a responsibility for their own safely and to avoid impeding traffic. It's about common courtesy and it needs to occur on both sides.

No, I absolutely agree, and I do always stop for pedestrians (as I expect cars to stop for me when I'm walking).

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by calvin_rotten

However, another thing to consider is that pedestrians are much slower than vehicle traffic. A car going through an intersection (even making a left turn) is going to take much less time than a pedestrian walking across a crosswalk. Furthermore, if I'm crossing the street by myself, and there are 4 lanes of traffic waiting for me, each with an average of 2 cars, with 2 occupants per car, then I'm making 16 people wait on the account of a single person. Besides, if I run or jog across the crosswalk then I'm going to get to my destination faster too.

Point well taken. Win/win in that case, but none of us are under any obligation to rush around for anyone else. If 16 people sitting in cars have to wait for 1, 2 or 10 pedestrians to cross the street..., well we all have to do what we all have to do. Why should pedestrians run, jog or otherwise hurry so that King and Queen in the car won't be inconvenienced? It's absurd!

Originally Posted by calvin_rotten

Frankly, I think the safest, simplest, and most elegant solution is still a pedestrian separation structure (Pedestrian separation structure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). In Taiwan they're called "sky bridges." They're basically just pedestrian overpasses. This minimizes traffic delays at intersections for both drivers and pedestrians while greatly increasing safety. I've always wondered why we don't have them here in the U.S. Though I guess one reason might be the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prevents staircases from being the only access to these grade-separated crosswalks, making them more expensive to build here.

I'd love to see a separation like this, but one question that immediately comes to mind is how do you justify subsidies? As it is now in the U.S., if you own a house but walk or ride a bike more than you drive, you are actually SUBSIDIZING those who drive by way of property taxes. (Even if you rent, you're also paying property taxes by way of your rent.) I could go along with the Taiwanese system as long as car-drivers pay their own way for their passage by way of vastly higher gas taxes and stop sucking property tax dollars as welfare to support a grossly inefficient mode of transportation.

[calvin_rotten]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

I'd love to see a separation like this, but one question that immediately comes to mind is how do you justify subsidies? As it is now in the U.S., if you own a house but walk or ride a bike more than you drive, you are actually SUBSIDIZING those who drive by way of property taxes. (Even if you rent, you're also paying property taxes by way of your rent.) I could go along with the Taiwanese system as long as car-drivers pay their own way for their passage by way of vastly higher gas taxes and stop sucking property tax dollars as welfare to support a grossly inefficient mode of transportation.

Well, it all boils down to our societal priorities. Yes, building these pedestrian bridges will cost money, but so does constructing things like public schools/parks/libraries and any other type of public infrastructure. But if the benefits they confer to the community outweigh the costs, then those funds will be raised by either increasing taxes or taking money away from other less important projects. The city will spend every penny of their annual budget one way or another. And there are always countless development projects competing for public funding. It's up to the municipal government to decide which proposals best serve the interests of the community.

One reason why these pedestrian bridges are so popular in Taiwan is probably because pedestrians don't have the right of way under Taiwanese law, so it's a lot more dangerous for pedestrians to cross the street. But while U.S. laws are more favorable towards pedestrians, such overpasses still provide much better safety than is provided by just some white or yellow painted lines on the pavement. At the very least they could be built over busy intersections that children have to cross on their way to and from school.

I mean, these are pretty low-tech structures made of only concrete and steel rebar. They require little to no maintenance and are sturdy enough to last many decades over. Contrast these with crosswalk signals that have to be maintained regularly, can still break down, and have to be replaced every few years. Pedestrian overpasses also eliminate the need for crossing guards. So over the lifetime of the pedestrian overpass, the convenience and safety it provides at major intersections is well worth the one-time construction cost IMO. And these investments in public infrastructure will ultimately contribute to higher property values by making the community a more desirable place to live and raise children.

We need more pedestrian-friendly city planning, and pedestrian bridges are just one way to move us towards that goal. It's very unfortunate that L.A.'s subway system was bought out and shutdown by the automotive industry, letting a perfectly functional public transportation system go to waste.

[Charles]

L.A. drivers have high rate of fatal pedestrian, cyclist crashes - latimes.com

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Los Angeles isn’t known as a city for walking.

So Dale Bozzio was right.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

So Dale Bozzio was right.

Pretty much. It's the matter of 2,000lb steel things hurtling along at breakneck speed, vs. the comparatively diminutive, fragile human form that skews the odds of winning a head-to-head clash dramatically to the former.