I love this idea.
http://www.today.com/news/mall-adds-fast-lane-after-young-girls-suggestion-1D79568706 (http://www.today.com/news/mall-adds-fast-lane-after-young-girls-suggestion-1D79568706)
But the mall got it backwards - it's the 'slow' lane, not the 'fast' lane, that should be next to the shop entrances.
I can't see it going well. Who wants to admit they are a slow walker? The fast people will complain the slow people get in the way, and the slow people will complain that the fast people are going too fast (aka, where's the fire?)
And totally agree with roadman. Who thought up the fast lane being by the stores?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2014, 01:43:34 PM
I can't see it going well. Who wants to admit they are a slow walker? The fast people will complain the slow people get in the way, and the slow people will complain that the fast people are going too fast (aka, where's the fire?)
And totally agree with roadman. Who thought up the fast lane being by the stores?
Eh, most moving walkways in airports are configured like this and it seems to work pretty well. Also Brits are better with labe discipline in cars than we are, and people are generally more polite when walking than driving.
Quote from: corco on April 25, 2014, 01:56:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2014, 01:43:34 PM
I can't see it going well. Who wants to admit they are a slow walker? The fast people will complain the slow people get in the way, and the slow people will complain that the fast people are going too fast (aka, where's the fire?)
And totally agree with roadman. Who thought up the fast lane being by the stores?
Eh, most moving walkways in airports are configured like this and it seems to work pretty well. Also Brits are better with labe discipline in cars than we are, and people are generally more polite when walking than driving.
:hmmm:
Most moving walkways I've seen have walkers on the left, standees on the right.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2014, 02:08:57 PM
Most moving walkways I've seen have walkers on the left, standees on the right.
Remember it's the UK, so theoretically you'd have the "lanes" in reverse (although that's not always the case, such as on Tube escalators where standing is to the right).
Quote from: roadman on April 25, 2014, 12:59:26 PM
But the mall got it backwards - it's the 'slow' lane, not the 'fast' lane, that should be next to the shop entrances.
If it's like almost every other mall I've visited–and it appears to be, from the picture–there are shops on both sides. The only exception I've seen is in multi-level malls where there's an opening (like an atrium, I guess) between shops on the upper level(s).
Regarding the concept of "lanes" in shopping areas, I remember visiting at least one grocery store somewhere in Quebec that had signs designating the aisles as one-way, with the direction alternating after each one. I do not remember what store it was nor how well it worked, though it caused me to do a double-take when I saw the signs.
I've sometimes joked that the Wegmans out near Fairfax needs lane dividers in the aisles and roundabouts at the intersections because so many people seem to be there to sightsee rather than to grocery-shop. The Giant Food near my house could use convex mirrors on the ends of the aisles because people plow right around the corners without looking to see if anyone else might be there.
QuoteRegarding the concept of "lanes" in shopping areas, I remember visiting at least one grocery store somewhere in Quebec that had signs designating the aisles as one-way, with the direction alternating after each one. I do not remember what store it was nor how well it worked, though it caused me to do a double-take when I saw the signs.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were several supermarkets - such as the now defunct First National-Finast chain - that my parents shopped at in Lynn and Salem (MA) that designated their aisles as one-way. As I recall, it was actually very effective at moving people through the supermarket faster - largely because they had given a great deal of thought as to the relationship of products being sold in adjacent aisles, so that people who went down one aisle to pick up a particular product were highly likely to come back up the next aisle to buy other products.
For me personally, it's Costco where I feel there needs to be "rules of engagement." I adopt a persona guiding my shopping cart that I would never do on the roads.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2014, 02:08:57 PM
Quote from: corco on April 25, 2014, 01:56:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2014, 01:43:34 PM
I can't see it going well. Who wants to admit they are a slow walker? The fast people will complain the slow people get in the way, and the slow people will complain that the fast people are going too fast (aka, where's the fire?)
And totally agree with roadman. Who thought up the fast lane being by the stores?
Eh, most moving walkways in airports are configured like this and it seems to work pretty well. Also Brits are better with labe discipline in cars than we are, and people are generally more polite when walking than driving.
:hmmm:
Most moving walkways I've seen have walkers on the left, standees on the right.
Yeah, I was referring more to the concept of walking lanes in general and how people behave as opposed to the specific configuration here. As far as why which lanes are where, I'd echo the comment that it's British.
I wonder if it'll now be illegal to cut off people walking
Voice of NY and Boston here: Malls are crowded. If you are using one as a bad weather cut-through, just push your way through. You'll be moving too fast for people to chase you down.
I, for one, am wondering when we make the step to r-y-g signals for pedestrians.
Quote from: kj3400 on April 26, 2014, 12:51:54 AM
I, for one, am wondering when we make the step to r-y-g signals for pedestrians.
Never. How do you avoid confusing that with the other signals? And if you mean to just show the same phase as the light overhead, that's what NJDOT (among many others) does when there's not enough volume to warrant a separate ped head.
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2014, 01:02:47 AM
Quote from: kj3400 on April 26, 2014, 12:51:54 AM
I, for one, am wondering when we make the step to r-y-g signals for pedestrians.
Never. How do you avoid confusing that with the other signals? And if you mean to just show the same phase as the light overhead, that's what NJDOT (among many others) does when there's not enough volume to warrant a separate ped head.
No, I meant just in a pedestrians only area. No car traffic around. I know that would be absurd, but I've always thought about it. A pedestrian freeway with ramps, pedestrian intersections with turning lanes. I'm weird like that.
Quote from: corco on April 25, 2014, 01:56:59 PM
Eh, most moving walkways in airports are configured like this and it seems to work pretty well.
No. You still get families who just want to hog the entire fucking thing and disregard anyone wanting to get by. Same principle applies when there are four slow people shopping together at this mall (it looks like this walkway is big enough for 4-5 people).
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 26, 2014, 11:11:18 AM
Quote from: corco on April 25, 2014, 01:56:59 PM
Eh, most moving walkways in airports are configured like this and it seems to work pretty well.
No. You still get families who just want to hog the entire fucking thing and disregard anyone wanting to get by. Same principle applies when there are four slow people shopping together at this mall (it looks like this walkway is big enough for 4-5 people).
In those instances though when it's striped like that, you can at least push through them and run over their three year old and not feel like a dick about it. When I see people hogging moving walkways and I'm in a hurry and there's a clear "stand right walk left"- I give a loud "excuse me" and just walk through them. They'll get out of the way.
Quote from: kj3400 on April 26, 2014, 02:42:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2014, 01:02:47 AM
Quote from: kj3400 on April 26, 2014, 12:51:54 AM
I, for one, am wondering when we make the step to r-y-g signals for pedestrians.
Never. How do you avoid confusing that with the other signals? And if you mean to just show the same phase as the light overhead, that's what NJDOT (among many others) does when there's not enough volume to warrant a separate ped head.
No, I meant just in a pedestrians only area. No car traffic around. I know that would be absurd, but I've always thought about it. A pedestrian freeway with ramps, pedestrian intersections with turning lanes. I'm weird like that.
See the posts made after yours. People aren't going to wait for other people to go by with such a system.
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2014, 04:41:52 PM
Quote from: kj3400 on April 26, 2014, 02:42:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2014, 01:02:47 AM
Quote from: kj3400 on April 26, 2014, 12:51:54 AM
I, for one, am wondering when we make the step to r-y-g signals for pedestrians.
Never. How do you avoid confusing that with the other signals? And if you mean to just show the same phase as the light overhead, that's what NJDOT (among many others) does when there's not enough volume to warrant a separate ped head.
No, I meant just in a pedestrians only area. No car traffic around. I know that would be absurd, but I've always thought about it. A pedestrian freeway with ramps, pedestrian intersections with turning lanes. I'm weird like that.
See the posts made after yours. People aren't going to wait for other people to go by with such a system.
I know that, but a guy can dream. People can't even wait to cross the street, when there's clearly cars coming, my system would just piss them off.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7178/14038376772_db47ae710c_b.jpg)
R-Y-G bike/ped signals are no problem in Denmark.