Comment by potato3732842
4 days ago
As a pedestrian I will take a busy light controlled intersection with a pedestrian scramble type walk signal over a busy 4-way stop where every single time.
With the 4-way stop there is never a time in the cycle when all traffic is stopped. The drivers who are present are continuously paying attention to what other drivers are doing which robs them of situational awareness to note pedestrians. You can try and time it but that's risky. With the walk signal there is a brief moment in time when the drivers are doing nothing but waiting for you and are all stopped so you as a pedestrian can account for them in preparation just before you get your signal and make your move.
The author can get lost with this sort of textbook correct but questionable in reality take. Legally having the right of way doesn't make you any less dead when the driver who's got three other drivers to pay attention to doesn't see you.
This is why it's often safer to "jaywalk". If you're in the middle of a block, you only have to look two ways. Even if you screw up, a driver going at a reasonable speed is more likely to see you anyway because you're directly in front of them. I'm not exactly advocating for crossing in the middle of a street in North America since it's depends a lot on the situation, but there's a reason why people sometimes just do it intuitively, and it's unfortunate our infrastructure doesn't know how to address it.
Jaywalking is very common in the Northeastern US, and I believe it is generally safer when done well. I have a rule that if you don't feel like you can calmly saunter across the street, you shouldn't jaywalk by running across, but many people do not follow such a rule, and just take the soonest opportunity they can find to run across the street.
Be careful, though - I once jaywalked when I was with some friends from the Midwest and they were very offended.
California just made jaywalking legal in 2023 too.
NYC legalized jaywalking in 2024, and the change will take effect next month, Feb 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/jaywalking-legalized-in...
mid-block crosswalks exist[1] and can placed where people already "jaywalk". To me it's like installing sidewalks on the desire paths[2].
[1]: https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/mid-block-pedestrian-c...
[2]: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/least-resistance-desi...
Our town has Installed several crosswalks with flashing lights in common crossing areas away from traffic lights. It feels many times safer.
> With the walk signal there is a brief moment in time when the drivers are doing nothing but waiting for you and are all stopped so you as a pedestrian can account for them in preparation just before you get your signal and make your move.
Having almost been hit a few times by drivers making a right turn on red, I can tell you the drivers never wait even if you have the right of way. You'll be lucky if they even look for you.
> Legally having the right of way doesn't make you any less dead when the driver who's got three other drivers to pay attention to doesn't see you.
Also, and I know this is unpopular, but maybe you shouldn't dress like that if you don't want the attention.
Why is right-on-red always cited as the biggest problem with turns? My anecdotal experience is that drivers turning on green are way more likely to hit me when I have a walk signal on the cross-street than drivers who turn right on red.
It's usually because a driver turning (right) on green doesn't have to worry about merging into traffic, so they only need to focus on pedestrians. Hopefully they will. A driver turning right on red has traffic coming from their left and pedestrians walking in front, and they're usually more concerned about the cars, so they tend to look left while turning right. Ouch. It's a growing issue as well because of the growing size of cars. Littler people can be completely concealed behind a front grille.
A car turning left on green is also an issue because while they should be able to see and wait for pedestrians, they're often occluded by other cars and trucks, and those left turners can be in a hurry to proceed through a gap in traffic.
1 reply →
On a green arrow turn, drivers are looking to where they are going. Legally crossing pedestrians are in that cross walk where the driver is looking.
With right on red, the driver is also looking to where they are going, but legally crossing pedestrians are not there, they are directly in front of the car.
The riskiest thing for a pedestrian is approaching a right on red car from the left, because the driver is simply not looking at you.
3 replies →
The number of people that make right-on-reds that not once during the approach or during the turn look to their right is what makes it a problem. I have often been tempted to do one of those YT videos of people spending their day videoing people at intersections to show how prevalent bad behavior really is. I just have no presence there for it to make it worth my time. I know how bad it is, and adjust my personal behavior accordingly
Are you saying that a right-turn can be green simultaneous with the pedestrian's crossing light being green?
Because where I'm from, traffic lights are not allowed to be set up like that. No simultaneous green for crossing traffic flows, unless otherwise indicated (eg, an extra warning light+sign under the turn's traffic light flashing when it's green and off otherwise).
7 replies →
Drivers have to worry about the traffic which has the green light vs. just looking where they're going.
My anecdotal evidence is that everyone is looking out for themselves and people in bigger vehicles will always take advantage of that.
Here's how I handle right on red: When I have the walk signal, I look to my left for cars that might be turning right. If there are any, I look at whether the driver sees me. Try to make eye contact. If they are moving and apparently don't see me or are going to turn anyway, I wait. I may have the right of way, but I'm not going to win that battle.
I make it clear with body language and eye contact that yes I see them and no I'm not meekly yielding my right of way. However, I leave just enough space to avoid being hit, for those situations when the True Assholes knowingly cut me off anyway. Or maybe they're not assholes by intent, but instead in the 90th percentile for inattentiveness and bad driving habits, which may even be the same thing. I don't know, I'm not a driver psychologist.
7 replies →
This is what was taught to me in drivers ed as a driver. Make eye contact with the pedestrian. So I do the same as a pedestrian as well.
> Having almost been hit a few times by drivers making a right turn on red, I can tell you the drivers never wait even if you have the right of way. You'll be lucky if they even look for you.
Right on red should not really be allowed. It's a real hazard.
IMO the problem isn't right on red itself, but rather that vehicles have to be in (and often completely over) the pedestrian crossing area to see oncoming vehicle traffic they have to yield to (at the distance required due to higher oncoming vehicle speeds). This encourages the behavior where drivers plan to have a single stop in that area, where they wait for an opening in vehicles to go - completely failing to take into account the possibility of having to stop before that area due to pedestrians actually using it. The situation is more like two separate stop and yields, and when drivers don't expect pedestrians they skip the first one.
12 replies →
The real issue are the road rage drivers who can't wait a minute and start honking behind you.
We all get it, we are all late now and then, but unless you are literally trying to catch a plane or a boat, in all likelihood you can sit your candy ass down and wait a minute.
1 reply →
It hasn't been a problem here in Maine, but Portland is an extremely relaxed place. The intersection outside my apartment is quite literally a cliche'd Indian street style free for all with a set of lights that offer suggestions, but people wait for pedestrians and nobody honks.
It's not allowed here in NYC. I've nearly gotten mowed down by people from the suburbs driving into the city not knowing it's illegal here on a few occasions. They also seem to get pissed and honk at me, as if walking around NYC isn't the default mode of transportation.
2 replies →
It isn't in much of Europe.
1 reply →
Right on red is (or should be) never allowed during a pedestrian scramble. That's just asking for trouble. The box must be entirely clear of cars during the walk signal.
I'm nearby this intersection and there are 2 scrambles- this one and one about 2 blocks down closer to the university. There is very clear signage for cars that there are no turns allowed on red. I've crossed both intersections many times and rarely have I seen cars violating that rule. Perhaps they do but in my experience, they generally respect it.
Left turns on green (with no green arrow) are also pretty bad imo, as are right turns on green with no arrow. In both cases pedestrians are supposed to have right-of-way, but cars often don't respect it.
2 replies →
Unfortunately it seems useless/impossible to situationally forbid right-on-red, drivers just do it anyway. There are several intersections in Seattle with "no right on red" signs for various reasons (poor visibility, trolley intersection) and drivers just ignore them and make the right regardless. I frequently get angrily honked at by the car behind me when I am obeying the no right on red sign.
> maybe you shouldn't dress like that if you don't want the attention.
Have you ever taken the selective attention test?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo (short 1:22 video)
>> Legally having the right of way doesn't make you any less dead when the driver who's got three other drivers to pay attention to doesn't see you.
>Also, and I know this is unpopular, but maybe you shouldn't dress like that if you don't want the attention.
in driver's ed you're taught to "drive defensively" i think the same applies to pedestrians. Don't just step into the road when the walk sign comes on, have some situational awareness and protect yourself.
Worse yet, at least in Seattle, are right arrow lights that go green at the same time as the walk light. You get a green light to go and pedestrians start crossing at the same time. Having a green light and a walking sign on should be mutually exclusive.
A pedestrian scramble means that no vehicles should be moving through the intersection period. It is a time in the cycle where ALL vehicles stop, and pedestrians can use the intersection freely in any direction, including diagonally.
You have never had a driver wait?
In the UK, it is very rare for a pedestrian crossing that is controlled by a button press to not completely stop traffic. The first time I was in North America as an adult, I realised that when on a crosswalk drivers will come sailing at you and will cross behind you as you cross over. That is illegal here. The drivers need to wait for the pedestrians to cross, even on "Zebra" crossings (which are the ones with no buttons and striped lines across the road.) The only exception to this is if there is a traffic island in the middle of the road, and then they are treated as 2 different crossings. But quite often those are staggered, so the pedestrian can't just walk out directly from one side to the other.
The trade off is that the pedestrian has pretty much no right of way anywhere but a crossing, and cars will drive at you (or at least not stop for you) if you try to cross somewhere that is not a crossing. Though "Jaywalking" is not a thing and you can actually cross where ever you like.
4 replies →
This is just not true.
In Toronto for instance, the majority of pedestrian deaths are caused by impaired/distracted drivers with a significant portion of failure to yield by left turning drivers at major, light controlled intersections.
There isn't even a category for "four way stop" pedestrian fatalities.
Speed is nearly everything and controlling (ie. reducing) speed should be the primary way to influence fatality rates.
Having lived in both Toronto and SF, both cities with 4-way stop and controlled lights intersections.
I'll take 4-way stop any day since speeds are lower. Much better to get hit by a car at near zero speed than a right or left turning car at higher speed. Which is probably why Toronto doesn't have a category for four way stop fatalities.
(The worst are SF's 2-way stops at intersections between equally-sized roads that show up randomly throughout Sunset. Worst of both worlds.)
> I'll take 4-way stop any day since speeds are lower.
Exactly. People are, at worst, doing a "rolling stop" so they are still only going a few kph when they "didn't see" you.
1 reply →
> (The worst are SF's 2-way stops at intersections between equally-sized roads that show up randomly throughout Sunset. Worst of both worlds.)
As a cyclist, I've been yelled at by drivers for not stopping at that type of intersection, where they have a stop sign and I don't. People are working off of their personal version of the rules of the road, where they are always right.
> (The worst are SF's 2-way stops at intersections between equally-sized roads that show up randomly throughout Sunset. Worst of both worlds.)
If you think that's bad, Seattle has 0-way stops at intersections in residential. AFAIK, the rule is if you have a stop sign, you must stop; if you don't have a stop sign and other directions do, you have right of way and should proceed if safe; if you don't have a stop sign and neither does anyone else, treat it as an all-way stop. But from my observations, common behavior is to make it through the intersection about half way before realizing there are no stop signs and then just continue through because what else can you do at that point?
Here's a particularly challenging example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/gmuFk8jbo4GMJ1Ru7 where five roads come together with no signage.
What you are describing has a major sampling bias: most pedestrian fatalities will be at large intersections with many lanes crossing each other. Those intersections are on busy streets where drivers are going fast and where there are an insane number of conflict points. Yes, they're invariably controlled by a signal, but that's because a four-way stop is totally out of the question. The signal didn't cause the fatalities, it was necessary to install it because of the same factors that lead to fatalities.
Using that data doesn't remotely begin to predict what happens when you take a small four-way stop and add a signal to control it. Adding a signal does not create new conflict points, it does not increase the speed limit on the road, all it does is control the intersection in a more aggressive way.
> What you are describing has a major sampling bias: most pedestrian fatalities will be at large intersections with many lanes crossing each other. Those intersections are on busy streets where drivers are going fast and where there are an insane number of conflict points.
That's not what the point plot of the Toronto data shows. Many of our fatalities are on city streets with 40 or 50 km/h speed limits.
Anyway, I was responding to the OP who was claiming that they would rather deal with stop lights than 4 way stops. There is nothing that shows that 4 way stops are dangerous at all, let alone more dangerous than light controlled stops in similar situations.
> With the 4-way stop there is never a time when all traffic is stopped and the drivers are always paying attention to what other drivers are doing. With the walk signal there is a brief moment in time when the drivers are doing nothing but waiting for you and are all stopped so you as a pedestrian can account for them in preparation just before you get your signal and make your move.
That's... not true? With light traffic a 4 way stop should have no cars at all at it most of the time, leaving pedestrians with the right of way, whereas with a traffic light there will always be a road with priority until a pedestrian hits the button. Requiring cars to pay attention to the condition of the intersection is the explicit design goal.
This was laid out very clearly in the article we just read.
> With light traffic a 4 way stop should have no cars at all at it most of the time
Unless there's protected right turns, of course.
Agreed, but I would not call an intersection with a dedicated turning lane a 4 way stop, or at least not a low traffic one.
1 reply →
>That's... not true? With light traffic a 4 way stop should have no cars at all at it most of the time, leaving pedestrians with the right of way, whereas with a traffic light there will always be a road with priority until a pedestrian hits the button. Requiring cars to pay attention to the condition of the intersection is the explicit design goal.
>This was laid out very clearly in the article we just read.
<facepalm>
This is what I mean about theory vs reality.
4-way stops don't look like the animation they show you in driver's ed. In practice what happens is that non conflicting traffic tends to parallelize so someone taking a left might start their left while the person across from them is finishing theirs (or one of any other bunch of combinations) so there's a car in motion basically all the time the situational awareness of every driver who's about to get their turn is mostly absorbed in monitoring who's turn it is and who's going where.
So when you're a pedestrian and you don't time it right you could find yourself starting to cross right before someone wants to drive where you're crossing. Usually this is because you started walking before it was their turn and they didn't notice you until it was their turn and they started moving (because they were accounting for the other traffic) until it was their turn at which point they started looking where they were going as well. Normally this results in absolutely nothing, you speed up a little, they don't gas it as hard, everyone goes on their merry way. But the potential for things to go badly if the conflicting driver is inattentive or further distracted is very much there.
Sure, theoretically the rules say they shouldn't do that but that's not how reality works.
There's just so much less potential for conflict if there is a scheduled time when all the cars stop and then the walking happens. Even without a dedicated walk time it's just so much easier to time it when there's a light because you can start walking when all the cars have red and only have to look out for right on red or potential red light runners, it's a much easier problem than the degree of swiveling your head around you need to do to at a busy 4-way.
I tend to agree with you. I regularly walk, sometimes up to 40 miles per month, in the suburban hellscape that is South Hill in Puyallup, WA. This is the land of major 4 lane arterials w/ turn-lanes and hundreds of unprotected two-way and four-way intersections. There’s almost no pedestrians, I’ll rarely meet other people on my way to work, and sometimes go the whole two miles without making eye contact with a single driver.
This article didn’t touch on it, but there’s another even scarier monster lurking out there. They’ve started to replace some of our larger intersections with these “Smart” traffic lights. Most drivers have a pretty well developed feel for the pattern traffic signals follow. These are pretty much random, adjusting the traffic flow based on some metrics. They use yield left turns with single direction flow and other tricks to try and control traffic. Since the light cycle doesn’t really follow any standard pattern, they’re also pretty much random when they’ll insert the protected pedestrian crossing into the cycle. It’s a death trap. There can be people waiting at a yield left turn which will be going to red, it will click on the pedestrian walk, and the opposing traffic will still be in full green, with drivers never coming to a stop. Add to that, if volume is heavy, you can stand there for 5 minutes or more waiting for a protected pedestrian crossing.
> ... the situational awareness of every driver who's about to get their turn is mostly absorbed in monitoring who's turn it is and who's going where.
Right, that's the intent. Drivers paying attention to their surroundings is the goal.
> So if you're a pedestrian and you don't time it right you could find yourself starting to cross right before someone wants to drive where you're crossing. Usually this is because you started walking before it was their turn...
You have the right of way!
> There's just so much less potential for conflict if there is a scheduled time when all the cars stop and then the walking happens.
How about a system where all cars are expected to stop all the time?
5 replies →
> This is what I mean about theory vs reality
> Sure, theoretically the rules say they shouldn't do that but that's not how reality works.
Do you have any evidence for this or are you just making this up as you type? Because it's a bit rich to be harping about "reality" otherwise.
A large body of research supports traffic calming measures for pedestrian safety and to increase driver awareness. A four-way stop intersection surrounded by intersections that also have stop signs (as indicated by the article) would fit that bill.
are you so engrossed in the driver's POV that you can't imagine an intersection without cars in it?
A stat of how many injuries occurred at this intersection would help settle your point. You're talking a lot of theory, where this person seems to have lived and traversed this intersection many times without incident.
Was the upgrade worth $600,000 in this town, this street? And why, if it is a small town with heavy pedestrian traffic, does it default to vehicular movement instead of pedestrian movement?
> The author can get lost with this sort of textbook correct but questionable in reality take
I find this perspective very weird when (1) the "textbook" take (i.e. the one traffic engineers follow) is to almost always prioritize vehicle speed and driver safety over everything else, and (2) in what world is it questionable in reality when it existed in reality for decades, seemingly without incident?
It's not even a textbook correct take. Its less risky to run a stop sign in a clear intersection than to run a red light. There are more people likely to run a stop sign on an empty intersection than a red light.
A 4-way stop is the best intersection for pedestrians in terms of speed. Just keep walking and don't yield your right of way. You may need to put up a hand to make yourself seen by the occasional distracted motorist. But because all vehicles need to stop, the average speed you are dealing with is 0-5mph, so the risk is low and everyone has time to react. Compare that with any lighted intersection where some cars are going full speed, making it a far more dangerous scenario.
I get your point, but still, while the "pedestrian scramble" is maybe good for pedestrian safety, it's probably the worst solution for pedestrian speed. If the pedestrian lights were at least green at the same time with the car light in the same direction, you would at least have a chance of crossing the street without having to wait. This way, the lights never turn green on their own (as seen in the video), so you always have to press a button and wait.
Plus, the author is wrong about both drivers running the red light. YEs, they are pushing the yellow, but they are both legal insofar as the car is over the line when the light turns red.
The first "running the red light" car at 11sec has his/her bumper fully over the white line in the last yellow-light video frame and his wheel fully on the line in the first video frame when the light is red. The second "running the red light car" has the entire car more than half way across the intersection with the light still yellow.
His point still stands that people are rushing to make the light, but it does his point no good to exaggerate like that.
While the 4-way-stop was maybe better for pedestrians, as traffic increased that would degrade.
Overall, it probably would be favorable to fix it in favor of pedestrians instead of vehicles, and to that end they should be narrowing the street and adding close-in trees and obstacles to cue the drivers that it is a much slower zone.
Make it a roundabout with protected pedestrian crossings. That forces drivers to be looking at the conflict point with pedestrians as they manoeuvre the roundabout.
I was very impressed in Denmark, where that roundabout approach worked very well. Every car slowed down & stopped for me at the crosswalks.
It turned out that that was because they installed a cobblestone speed bump in front of every crosswalk. Cars slowed down even if no pedestrians were around, because otherwise they were going to pop a tire. It made walking so much safer than anywhere else I've been.
Those don't fix it in my experience. There's one about a quarter mile from where I'm sitting right now and I avoid it when walking because of how dangerous it is. Yes, they will see you crossing... as they almost hit you. They recently redid it to be a bit safer for driving on (before people were unclear on how many lanes it had and which lanes could turn where) but it doesn't seem to have improved the pedestrian experience much.
in practice i find this does not work well at all… for some reason in roundabouts is when cars most feel justified in running down a pedestrian in a crosswalk. sometimes i think they’re just afraid to slow bc of the cars behind them
This. Roundabouts with medians. The answer is (almost) always roundabouts.
i hate pedestrian scramble systems they make it so slow to walk anywhere
> With the walk signal there is a brief moment in time when the drivers are doing nothing but waiting for you
In my area, there are plenty of stop lights with pedestrian signals where both are active at the same time. This allows the traffic to flow if there are no pedestrians on the assumption the drivers will recognize the pedestrians have right of way. To me, this is bat shit crazy level of assumptions. Either protect the pedestrians, or you might as well remove the pedestrian signal.