• Sconrad122@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Pedestrians very often get the green walk sign at the same time as cars in the same direction get the green straight ahead sign that implicitly allows right turns as well. In that scenario, the cars are often located just behind the pedestrian’s peripheral vision, and the cars are looking up and ahead at the light (or maybe to their left if they were previously hoping to execute a right on red and waiting for a gap in traffic), so it becomes basically exactly what you were talking about with bikes. Cars turning across a “lane” of pedestrian traffic with neither party having good visibility of the other. There are a couple of solutions/mitigations in use for this problem, dedicated “all-red” pedestrian cycles, protected intersections that move vulnerable road users further forward to be more visible, and advanced pedestrian greens that make cars wait until pedestrians are already in the intersection and more visible before getting the go ahead. Or, if your city is like mine and car-centric, they might stick up a yellow sign on the opposite light post across the stroad that says “pedestrians yield to turning vehicles” in text that is just barely legible from across the street at an intersection that has audible wait and walk indicators for blind people who definitely can’t read that sign and will thus be endangered for not getting the memo (not that car drivers are reading it either, so several considerate drivers will wave the pedestrians forward, further confusing the right of way situation). Fun!

    In short, every turn you make as a driver should be accompanied by a check for vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians because our infrastructure will not necessarily put them in a place that is easily visible to you

    • anothermember@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the UK when there’s a green man (pedestrian crossing signal) it means that all traffic is stopped, and (though not officially recommended) you could cross diagonally and it’ll be fine. In the US and some other countries, it doesn’t seem to have that meaning, so other traffic may still have a green light or be allowed to pass a red light where pedestrians are being told it’s safe to cross.

      Pedestrians very often get the green walk sign at the same time as cars in the same direction get the green straight ahead sign that implicitly allows right turns as well. In that scenario, the cars are often located just behind the pedestrian’s peripheral vision, and the cars are looking up and ahead at the light

      It seems to me that that’s the wrong way round, if there’s no pedestrian crossing it’s safer to cross when the traffic is moving from the left-right of you than in front and behind you.

      My suggestion is that pedestrian crossing signals should stop all car traffic in the junction and if no signal exists the guidance should be to cross where the traffic is visible (left and right) not when it comes from behind you.

      • buzziebee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Obviously it depends on the junction, but for anyone who’s not familiar with UK crossings here’s a touch more context:

        It’s not necessarily all traffic at that entire junction, just traffic going across that specific crossing point that’s guaranteed to be stopped. So if there would be the possibility for a turn onto a road that has a green pedestrian light either all the traffic going that way would be on a red light, or there would be a filter light where only the relevant traffic (straight or a turn) would be on red.