Pedestrian crossings enhancement

[yand]

What if pedestrian crossings had green/yellow/red rings on the ground approaching the crosswalk to simulate a traffic light? Pedestrians entering on the yellow/red marking is equivalent to a yellow/ red traffic light. This would provide better guidance for whether cars can keep going or have to stop as a pedestrian is approaching the crosswalk.

[Ned Weasel]

I'm not sure exactly how this would work, but it sounds a lot more expensive than a normal traffic signal.  Could you provide a diagram?

[jeffandnicole]

Sounds ok if you only have one person.  If you have a group of people, they'll be standing in a general area.  If you have kids, they'll play hopscotch with the circles.

[interstatefan990]

Also, why on the ground? Not everyone is on their phones. And it's more safe for people to have their heads up, looking out for vehicles, than to be staring at the ground.

[yand]

I mean something like this:

[kphoger]

1.  Define loiter.  Sounds like a fun afternoon, with the results to be posted on YouTube.

2.  This isn't the way most state laws work.  In most states, drivers are only required to yield to pedestrians who are actually in a travel lane (or, possibly, that their being in a travel lane is imminent).

3.  Are you planning to paint the grass?

[webny99]

1.  Define loiter.  Sounds like a fun afternoon, with the results to be posted on YouTube.

2.  This isn't the way most state laws work.  In most states, drivers are only required to yield to pedestrians who are actually in a travel lane (or, possibly, that their being in a travel lane is imminent).

3.  Are you planning to paint the grass?

All good questions. I think mine might be even more practical:

4. What about people that aren't crossing, but instead just walking straight through the red and yellow zones? Traffic screeches to a halt for no reason?

5. What about people that are jogging? What about people like me with a big stride, or young kids with a small stride? How would the "speed limit"/walk time be enforced?

[yand]

The main purpose of these markings is to provide guidance when pedestrians are approaching with intent to cross. There's some fairly common sense things that can be fleshed out in rulemaking but aren't important in the conceptual phase
Eg. if their trajectory/direction is clearly to continue on the sidewalk, then obviously you wouldn't need to stop for them
Just as if they've already crossed in front of you and are now walking away to the other side of the road, you can continue even if they're still on the red zone
People loitering on the sidewalk eg. waiting for a pick up generally face forward which is very similar to someone who wants to cross, that would not be allowed in the yellow or red zone.
The other thing is my diagram is obviously not to scale, the yellow zone might be small enough to leave plenty of space on the sidewalk for people to hang out/ walk around with minimal effort. The shape will also be tweaked as problems are solved.
The size of the yellow would be based on the speed of a faster than average walker, there could even be words/signs on the approaching ends saying eg. this is a 4 second yellow zone. Most people would not be physically capable of accidentally breaking the speed limit just walking normally. The enforcement of speed limit would basically be similar to jaywalking enforcement, mainly a liability thing.
If you're running, slowing down near intersections is just a normal thing.
These markings work with or without a change in the laws. If the laws aren't changed then these markings simply give the driver a better indication of whether a pedestrian is about to cross based on their position. When used as intended, this design leaves less room for ambiguity and improves driver comfort and pedestrian safety.

[kphoger]

People loitering on the sidewalk eg. waiting for a pick up generally face forward which is very similar to someone who wants to cross, that would not be allowed in the yellow or red zone.

Not allowed?  How about waiting for the bus, when that's the only spot that's clear of snow and ice?

Facing the street while waiting for a bus and looking upstream to see if it's coming:  that looks a lot like waiting to cross the street and looking upstream for a gap in traffic.

[jeffandnicole]

The main purpose of these markings is to provide guidance when pedestrians are approaching with intent to cross. There's some fairly common sense things that can be fleshed out in rulemaking but aren't important in the conceptual phase
Eg. if their trajectory/direction is clearly to continue on the sidewalk, then obviously you wouldn't need to stop for them
Just as if they've already crossed in front of you and are now walking away to the other side of the road, you can continue even if they're still on the red zone
People loitering on the sidewalk eg. waiting for a pick up generally face forward which is very similar to someone who wants to cross, that would not be allowed in the yellow or red zone.
The other thing is my diagram is obviously not to scale, the yellow zone might be small enough to leave plenty of space on the sidewalk for people to hang out/ walk around with minimal effort. The shape will also be tweaked as problems are solved.
The size of the yellow would be based on the speed of a faster than average walker, there could even be words/signs on the approaching ends saying eg. this is a 4 second yellow zone. Most people would not be physically capable of accidentally breaking the speed limit just walking normally. The enforcement of speed limit would basically be similar to jaywalking enforcement, mainly a liability thing.
If you're running, slowing down near intersections is just a normal thing.
These markings work with or without a change in the laws. If the laws aren't changed then these markings simply give the driver a better indication of whether a pedestrian is about to cross based on their position. When used as intended, this design leaves less room for ambiguity and improves driver comfort and pedestrian safety.

How would a motorist see these painted areas to know where a person is standing.

I'm not sure how you define loitering, but telling people they can't stand on a public sidewalk isn't going to go well with anyone.

[yand]

People loitering on the sidewalk eg. waiting for a pick up generally face forward which is very similar to someone who wants to cross, that would not be allowed in the yellow or red zone.

Not allowed?  How about waiting for the bus, when that's the only spot that's clear of snow and ice?

Facing the street while waiting for a bus and looking upstream to see if it's coming:  that looks a lot like waiting to cross the street and looking upstream for a gap in traffic.

How about we just clear the sidewalks better and maybe improve the bus stop area so this doesn't happen? There are a lot of common sense exemptions/ enforcement discretion to allow people to break rules in abnormal situations. Even if they aren't - as long as the person is somewhere visible by the bus driver, if they are near the bus stop and wave to the driver, the driver will stop, even if they aren't on the curb.

How would a motorist see these painted areas to know where a person is standing.

I'm not sure how you define loitering, but telling people they can't stand on a public sidewalk isn't going to go well with anyone.

Ideally the same way they see any other painted marking (by looking at it), which would be easier if they slow down when approaching the crossing. Making sure the driver has an adequate sight line and enhancing the markings with raised flags would also help. Not standing near a crossing and disrupting traffic when you can stand literally anywhere else is already common courtesy, not a big deal to formalize that into a rule. There are lots of traffic laws that road users hate but are implemented anyway, speed limits, jaywalking laws etc. IF it has a proven net benefit to safety and is able to pass in the rule making process, it really doesn't matter what the loiterers think.

[kphoger]

People loitering on the sidewalk eg. waiting for a pick up generally face forward which is very similar to someone who wants to cross, that would not be allowed in the yellow or red zone.

Not allowed?  How about waiting for the bus, when that's the only spot that's clear of snow and ice?

Facing the street while waiting for a bus and looking upstream to see if it's coming:  that looks a lot like waiting to cross the street and looking upstream for a gap in traffic.

How about we just clear the sidewalks better and maybe improve the bus stop area so this doesn't happen? There are a lot of common sense exemptions/ enforcement discretion to allow people to break rules in abnormal situations. Even if they aren't - as long as the person is somewhere visible by the bus driver, if they are near the bus stop and wave to the driver, the driver will stop, even if they aren't on the curb.

How, exactly, do you propose sidewalks be kept clear at all times, when they can't even keep the roads clear at all times?  And how do you propose they do it?  Drive snow plows on the sidewalks?

As for standing somewhere other than the exact bus stop, that's exactly what I meant.  Sometimes the crosswalk area is clear but the actual bus stop istn't.  Or, better yet, take a look at this example location near where I used to live, a place I actually used to catch the bus.  (Note that this GSV is from before the bus stop was relocated.)  Now imagine it's raining cats and dogs, and the grass is all wet and muddy.  I'm dressed up, because I'm on my way to play in a concert.  Where do you expect me to stand while I wait for the bus?  I'll tell you where I'm standing:  right there in your red zone.

How would a motorist see these painted areas to know where a person is standing.

I'm not sure how you define loitering, but telling people they can't stand on a public sidewalk isn't going to go well with anyone.

Ideally the same way they see any other painted marking (by looking at it), which would be easier if they slow down when approaching the crossing. Making sure the driver has an adequate sight line and enhancing the markings with raised flags would also help. Not standing near a crossing and disrupting traffic when you can stand literally anywhere else is already common courtesy, not a big deal to formalize that into a rule. There are lots of traffic laws that road users hate but are implemented anyway, speed limits, jaywalking laws etc. IF it has a proven net benefit to safety and is able to pass in the rule making process, it really doesn't matter what the loiterers think.

Raised flags?  At every crosswalk?  Are you serious?  How about a cardboard cutout of a stern-looking police officer, while we're at it?

Imagine you're going 40 mph down this theoretical boulevard, and you see a person standing near the border between the yellow and green zones.  You can't quite tell which color their feet are on (it doesn't help that the color has faded a bit with age).  So you don't know whether you need to stop or not.  You squint a bit, slow down a bit.  Oh, they're just on the green zone!  So on you go, across the intersection, not realizing that your light had turned red while you were squinting at colored sidewalk pavement, and you T-bone a car.

Standing at a crosswalk when one can stand literally anywhere else is something I see fairly often.  Maybe they've been jogging and they're taking a two-light-cycle rest before continuing.  Maybe they made a phone call while the light was red and they don't want to start walking again till the conversation is over.  Maybe they're unfamiliar with the area and are trying to figure out which way to go.  I agree with |jeffandnicole|:  making it illegal to stand there isn't going to go over well with people.

[ran4sh]

How would a motorist see these painted areas to know where a person is standing.

I'm not sure how you define loitering, but telling people they can't stand on a public sidewalk isn't going to go well with anyone.

Ideally the same way they see any other painted marking (by looking at it), which would be easier if they slow down when approaching the crossing.

"which would be easier if they slow down when approaching the crossing."

You want cars to slow down at every unsignalized intersection? That kinda defeats the purpose of leaving the intersection unsignalized.

[kphoger]

You want cars to slow down at every unsignalized intersection? That kinda defeats the purpose of leaving the intersection unsignalized.

I thought that at first, but then I realized:  it would only matter if there's actually a person there.  So slowing down might probably be a decent idea anyway.

[yand]

How, exactly, do you propose sidewalks be kept clear at all times, when they can't even keep the roads clear at all times?  And how do you propose they do it?  Drive snow plows on the sidewalks?

A proper city would have enough demand to justify doing a better job of clearing sidewalks, hiring people to operate snow equipment on foot if they have to. In situations where it's not done for whatever reason, refer to my point about exemptions and enforcement discretion

Raised flags?  At every crosswalk?  Are you serious?  How about a cardboard cutout of a stern-looking police officer, while we're at it?

It'll help and won't cost that much. It's just an option.

Imagine you're going 40 mph down this theoretical boulevard, and you see a person standing near the border between the yellow and green zones.  You can't quite tell which color their feet are on (it doesn't help that the color has faded a bit with age).  So you don't know whether you need to stop or not.  You squint a bit, slow down a bit.  Oh, they're just on the green zone!  So on you go, across the intersection, not realizing that your light had turned red while you were squinting at colored sidewalk pavement, and you T-bone a car.

Why is the unsignalized crossing so close to the signalized intersection? Why is the driver going so fast if they can't manage both the pedestrian crossing and the traffic light? You put 2 uncoordinated traffic lights within 200ft of each other and you're gonna get similar results of one interfering with the other.

Standing at a crosswalk when one can stand literally anywhere else is something I see fairly often.  Maybe they've been jogging and they're taking a two-light-cycle rest before continuing. 

Some people are courteous, other people are not. Maybe they don't know, maybe they don't care. It doesn't take much for the people in your scenario to stand further back from the curb and minimize confusion for turning cars.

[kphoger]

Why is the unsignalized crossing ...

Wait, is this only for unsignalized crosswalks?  Did you say that somewhere and I missed it?

Anything else I need to know?  Is this only for marked crosswalks too?

[Dirt Roads]

Why is the unsignalized crossing ...

Wait, is this only for unsignalized crosswalks?  Did you say that somewhere and I missed it?

Anything else I need to know?  Is this only for marked crosswalks too?

When I first read this, it sounded like a replacement for HAWK signals.  But the main argument against HAWK signals would apply here as well.

[yand]

Anything else I need to know?  Is this only for marked crosswalks too?

... why didn't I know unmarked crosswalks are a thing 🌈⭐

but yeah no shit if there's a pedestrian signal then these markings would be redundant or even misleading. If you're turning at an intersection you're usually going slow enough to easily stop. This system is mainly to help guide traffic crossing at higher speeds. Ideally they would be on unmarked crosswalks as well if cars are legally expected to yield all the same, though they probably won't be due to cost

[ran4sh]

You do understand that, in most states, there is legally a crosswalk across each leg of an intersection even if it is unmarked, right?

[kphoger]

And not everyone at an intersection is turning.

[Jet380]

I feel like this idea just duplicates what should be going through any competent driver's head when approaching a crossing. If someone is within a few steps of the crossing, I know that I might need to stop for them, so I slow down. How close, and how slow exactly, I suppose is a subconscious decision based on any number of things: How fast am I going, how fast is the pedestrian going, are they in a group, do they look like they actually want to cross the road, are they intoxicated, and so on. To formalise this into a static painted 'yellow zone' and 'red zone', I think, would hinder more than help.

[yand]

I feel like this idea just duplicates what should be going through any competent driver's head when approaching a crossing. If someone is within a few steps of the crossing, I know that I might need to stop for them, so I slow down. How close, and how slow exactly, I suppose is a subconscious decision based on any number of things: How fast am I going, how fast is the pedestrian going, are they in a group, do they look like they actually want to cross the road, are they intoxicated, and so on. To formalise this into a static painted 'yellow zone' and 'red zone', I think, would hinder more than help.

Safety is more important than making things a driving test. Its why there are tools like step down speed limits even though a competent driver should be able to go straight from 70mph to 30mph.