http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/cityroom/2014/11/06/new-york-today-taking-it-slow/?_r=0&referrer=
On "most streets," says the article.
My question, unaddressed in what I read–how will this affect surfing the green light wave uptown and down?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 06, 2014, 01:02:36 PM
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/cityroom/2014/11/06/new-york-today-taking-it-slow/?_r=0&referrer=
On "most streets," says the article.
My question, unaddressed in what I read–how will this affect surfing the green light wave uptown and down?
Depends on what speed the lights are set to. It's not like the average speed on most avenues is anywhere close to 25 and I doubt the NYPD will waste time getting the people going 30. Also, now that many (if not the majority of) lights are linked to a central computer system, the green wave could be readjusted to fit the new speed limit with the push of a button.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 06, 2014, 01:02:36 PM
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/cityroom/2014/11/06/new-york-today-taking-it-slow/?_r=0&referrer=
On "most streets," says the article.
My question, unaddressed in what I read–how will this affect surfing the green light wave uptown and down?
The green wave was always set for 28. I don't think it will affect it too much.
If moving regulations are anything like parking violations, New Yorkers will do what they feel they can get away with, and not do what they feel they can't. It doesn't matter whether the number is 25 or 30, although changing it might provide the excuse for increased enforcement that, if applied broadly and consistently enough, would be the real deterring factor.
For example, double parking carries a much stiffer penalty than failing to move your car during street cleaning. However, people universally choose to double park rather than leave their car in the street cleaning zone, because they will receive a ticket for the latter much more certainly than for the former. By the same token, many legal parking spaces, such as at certain pedestrian ramps, will go almost completely unused because the police are very likely to issue an erroneous ticket for them.
In other words, there's what's legal, and then there's "accepted practice". All that needs to be done is to move fast driving out of the second category. It's eminently conceivable, as many other ingrained aspects of NYC culture seem to have gone by the wayside recently, but whether it will actually occur in the case of speeding remains to be seen.
Quote from: empirestate on November 07, 2014, 01:26:19 PM
In other words, there's what's legal, and then there's "accepted practice". All that needs to be done is to move fast driving out of the second category. It's eminently conceivable, as many other ingrained aspects of NYC culture seem to have gone by the wayside recently, but whether it will actually occur in the case of speeding remains to be seen.
Um...
no! One of the great things about driving downstate is that, unless everything is stopped, everyone moves
fast. The rest of the company slows down if there's traffic. Not New York. Yeah, it's more dangerous, but downstate drivers tend to be good drivers-it's the only way one can drive there every day and not get killed. If everyone is going the same speed, no matter if it's 55, 70, or 90 in good conditions, it's a lot safer than if half the cars are doing 70-80 and the rest are going 50-55.
Quote from: empirestate on November 07, 2014, 01:26:19 PM
If moving regulations are anything like parking violations, New Yorkers will do what they feel they can get away with, and not do what they feel they can't. It doesn't matter whether the number is 25 or 30, although changing it might provide the excuse for increased enforcement that, if applied broadly and consistently enough, would be the real deterring factor.
For example, double parking carries a much stiffer penalty than failing to move your car during street cleaning. However, people universally choose to double park rather than leave their car in the street cleaning zone, because they will receive a ticket for the latter much more certainly than for the former. By the same token, many legal parking spaces, such as at certain pedestrian ramps, will go almost completely unused because the police are very likely to issue an erroneous ticket for them.
In other words, there's what's legal, and then there's "accepted practice". All that needs to be done is to move fast driving out of the second category. It's eminently conceivable, as many other ingrained aspects of NYC culture seem to have gone by the wayside recently, but whether it will actually occur in the case of speeding remains to be seen.
Agreed. Whenever there's speed limit changes like this, people suddenly act as if the law will be enforced 100%. If the speed limit was 30, and traffic was so jammed that traffic would never go 30 mph, then there'll simply be more of the same at 25 mph. If other streets were more wide open, if police weren't stopping people doing 31, chances are they're not going to stop them doing 26.
It's hardly a money making scheme as many people put it. There's enough existing laws out there the police can enforce if they wanted to do that.
Quote from: cl94 on November 07, 2014, 01:32:43 PM
If everyone is going the same speed, no matter if it's 55, 70, or 90 in good conditions, it's a lot safer than if half the cars are doing 70-80 and the rest are going 50-55.
Lolwut. Try going 55 on a surface road in Manhattan without being a black duck.
Quote from: NE2 on November 07, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 07, 2014, 01:32:43 PM
If everyone is going the same speed, no matter if it's 55, 70, or 90 in good conditions, it's a lot safer than if half the cars are doing 70-80 and the rest are going 50-55.
Lolwut. Try going 55 on a surface road in Manhattan without being a black duck.
I meant the expressways/parkways
What difference is that going to make. No one does the 30 anyhow. When I used to drive through the city, even though I never payed attention to the speedometer, I went as fast as the flow which I remember had to be going well over that.
The avenues in Manhattan you wanted to go as fast as you can so you can make the most amount of lights. The streets on the other hand, you are always at a standstill and if a truck double parks to make a delivery that adds to your wait time. Either way you can't do the 30.
In the other boroughs I am sure its like anywhere else where the 85 percentile does 10-15 miles over the posted limit.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2014, 03:59:37 PM
What difference is that going to make. No one does the 30 anyhow. When I used to drive through the city, even though I never payed attention to the speedometer, I went as fast as the flow which I remember had to be going well over that.
The avenues in Manhattan you wanted to go as fast as you can so you can make the most amount of lights. The streets on the other hand, you are always at a standstill and if a truck double parks to make a delivery that adds to your wait time. Either way you can't do the 30.
In the other boroughs I am sure its like anywhere else where the 85 percentile does 10-15 miles over the posted limit.
I was gonna say...people go as fast as they can go. Unless you're doing something dangerous, it's actually advantageous for traffic flow for people to be moving faster. NYPD doesn't give a damn unless you're in a school zone or a "slow zone" because there's just too much traffic and the streets are all well over capacity.
From spending a lot of time in Park Slope, I can tell you that 8th Avenue and Prospect Park West can be FAST, as they're both one-way streets with a green wave. 4th Avenue has a green wave in the peak direction and it can be the same way at times.
Quote from: cl94 on November 07, 2014, 04:25:23 PM
Unless you're doing something dangerous, it's actually advantageous for traffic flow for people to be moving faster.
When 2/3 of the people don't drive, those who do can get fucked.
Quote from: cl94 on November 07, 2014, 03:55:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 07, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 07, 2014, 01:32:43 PM
If everyone is going the same speed, no matter if it's 55, 70, or 90 in good conditions, it's a lot safer than if half the cars are doing 70-80 and the rest are going 50-55.
Lolwut. Try going 55 on a surface road in Manhattan without being a black duck.
I meant the expressways/parkways
The 25mph limit won't apply to those.
To make another point, it's not so important what numerical speed people reach as they drive around, it's that they try to get from one obstacle to the next as fast as possible. When you listen to much of the traffic going down a residential block like mine, you'll hear an amount of engine acceleration far out of scale to what you should need to get from the beginning of the block to the next stop sign. Already, it's unlikely that very many vehicles are even attaining 30mph on the block, but they certainly do try, yet for no real gain. People will wait for a line of oncoming traffic before making a left turn, yet will not wait for oncoming pedestrians, even though the consequences are much more dire for both parties should the pedestrian be struck. Priorities, in short, are misplaced.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 06, 2014, 01:02:36 PM
My question, unaddressed in what I read–how will this affect surfing the green light wave uptown and down?
I've heard that the city plans to actually go about retiming signals in order to account for the change. Not that that means anything outside of Manhattan avenues since this is already the city of "Signal coordination? What's that?"
As for the speed limit reduction itself, I keep wanting to have an aneurism every time I read things like this (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/11/07/nycs-new-25-mile-per-hour-speed-limit-takes-effect/):
QuoteTrottenberg said last year 291 people died in New York City in traffic-related accidents. She said research shows even a five mile per hour reduction in speed will make a difference.
"When you lower the speed limit from 30 to 25, if there's a collision, you cut in half the chances it will result in a fatality," Trottenberg said Thursday.
Trottenberg without blinking goes from citing a completely true fact about speed, to talking about speed
limits. It's genius from a propaganda perspective since the vast majority of idiots won't notice or realize there's anything funny. But for those of us who are paying attention we will note that "speed" and "speed limit" are not the same thing and it is a huge logical fallacy to conflate the two.
Yes, reducing speed increases safety. But this policy hinges on the assumption that reducing the speed limit equals reducing speed... an assumption which, unfortunately for the idea of "Vision Zero", is a myth that has been debunked repeatedly. Drivers, for the most part, will drive the speed they are comfortable driving based on conditions, regardless of what number you put on a sign. A few drivers who compulsively obey speed limits will slow down, but most won't and because of this lowering the limit actually
reduces safety since people driving at different speeds is more likely to cause an accident than everyone driving at the same high speed. Predictability equals safety. This is basically the same reason why states that have been raising their speed limits have seen no ill effect. Gridlock Sam gets it:
QuoteBut will the reduced speed limit actually change traffic patterns in the city?
Sam Schwartz, the former traffic commissioner known as Gridlock Sam, told us, essentially, no.
For one thing, posting signs has been shown to have little effect on driver behavior.
If the city wants to slow people down they need to implement traffic calming measures, not just change a bunch of signs.
I would bet real money that most New York drivers currently do not know what the speed limit is to begun with. It is one of those universal concepts–like car ownership–that is fundamentally different in practice in New York than in the rest of the country.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 07, 2014, 08:13:47 PM
I would bet real money that most New York drivers currently do not know what the speed limit is to begun with.
When I mentioned to my father that the speed limit was being lowered to 25, his response was "Huh? Hasn't it always been 25?".
Soooo.... yeah.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 07, 2014, 08:13:47 PM
I would bet real money that most New York drivers currently do not know what the speed limit is to begun with. It is one of those universal concepts–like car ownership–that is fundamentally different in practice in New York than in the rest of the country.
They'll know soon enough. According to today's New York Times, all main roads which enter NYC already have new signs posted: "NYC LAW - SPEED LIMIT 25 - UNLESS OTHERWISE POSTED." More signs are being produced at the NYCDOT sign shop in Maspeth.
Quote from: SidS1045 on November 08, 2014, 09:10:55 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 07, 2014, 08:13:47 PM
I would bet real money that most New York drivers currently do not know what the speed limit is to begun with. It is one of those universal concepts–like car ownership–that is fundamentally different in practice in New York than in the rest of the country.
They'll know soon enough. According to today's New York Times, all main roads which enter NYC already have new signs posted: "NYC LAW - SPEED LIMIT 25 - UNLESS OTHERWISE POSTED." More signs are being produced at the NYCDOT sign shop in Maspeth.
Yeah, and all the old signs (identical except for the number) were in the same places. People still didn't know what it was. General rule down there is go as fast as traffic conditions allow (as one is
never alone on the streets).
Quote from: Duke87 on November 07, 2014, 08:20:54 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 07, 2014, 08:13:47 PM
I would bet real money that most New York drivers currently do not know what the speed limit is to begun with.
When I mentioned to my father that the speed limit was being lowered to 25, his response was "Huh? Hasn't it always been 25?".
Soooo.... yeah.
That is everywhere. If you ask people who drive on I-4 in Orlando, I bet over 90 percent do not know where the 55 zone is, the 60 mph zone (heck I wonder if anyone noticed that FDOT has a 60 zone), the 65 mph zone, and that 70 mph exists way outside the Orlando metro area.
quote from roadman65
Quote
That is everywhere. If you ask people who drive on I-4 in Orlando, I bet over 90 percent do not know where the 55 zone is, the 60 mph zone (heck I wonder if anyone noticed that FDOT has a 60 zone), the 65 mph zone, and that 70 mph exists way outside the Orlando metro area.
How are they supposed to know, when it dynamic?
When I was there, they had it set to 50 for no reason when traffic was light and there was no rain. Thankfully, everybody had enough balls to ignore it and do 65.
Quote from: Brian556 on November 09, 2014, 09:29:14 AM
quote from roadman65
Quote
That is everywhere. If you ask people who drive on I-4 in Orlando, I bet over 90 percent do not know where the 55 zone is, the 60 mph zone (heck I wonder if anyone noticed that FDOT has a 60 zone), the 65 mph zone, and that 70 mph exists way outside the Orlando metro area.
How are they supposed to know, when it dynamic?
When I was there, they had it set to 50 for no reason when traffic was light and there was no rain. Thankfully, everybody had enough balls to ignore it and do 65.
Exactly! That whole 50 zone is ridiculous as traffic moves much more free than the busy tourist area does, yet around Disney the speed limit is either 60 or 65 where you can just barely do 55. Here you can do 70 mph with so much ease and FDOT has the NJ Turnpike type of speed limit set up, but will not go higher than 50 no matter how little or how much traffic is using the interstate.
Quote from: SidS1045 on November 08, 2014, 09:10:55 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 07, 2014, 08:13:47 PM
I would bet real money that most New York drivers currently do not know what the speed limit is to begun with. It is one of those universal concepts–like car ownership–that is fundamentally different in practice in New York than in the rest of the country.
They'll know soon enough. According to today's New York Times, all main roads which enter NYC already have new signs posted: "NYC LAW - SPEED LIMIT 25 - UNLESS OTHERWISE POSTED." More signs are being produced at the NYCDOT sign shop in Maspeth.
I saw a
Times photo of those in the shop yesterday. The accompanying article mentioned that there's no real plan to crack down on speeders, just a desire to, over the years, change the speeding culture or something. I'm not holding my breath.
If they were serious about saving lives rather than crusading against cars, they'd have pedestrians cross streets during all-ped phases to eliminate the conflict with turning traffic and crack down on jaywalking. This would also have the side effect of reducing red light running by making it possible for traffic to actually make their turns when the light is green.
Quote from: vdeane on November 09, 2014, 05:05:10 PM
If they were serious about saving lives rather than crusading against cars, they'd have pedestrians cross streets during all-ped phases to eliminate the conflict with turning traffic and crack down on jaywalking. This would also have the side effect of reducing red light running by making it possible for traffic to actually make their turns when the light is green.
I really like the Barnes Dance at intersections where the volumes of pedestrian traffic justifies it.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2014, 11:02:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 09, 2014, 05:05:10 PM
If they were serious about saving lives rather than crusading against cars, they'd have pedestrians cross streets during all-ped phases to eliminate the conflict with turning traffic and crack down on jaywalking. This would also have the side effect of reducing red light running by making it possible for traffic to actually make their turns when the light is green.
I really like the Barnes Dance at intersections where the volumes of pedestrian traffic justifies it.
Yeah. It works really well on Yonge and Dundas Streets at Dundas Square in Toronto.
Quote from: vdeane on November 09, 2014, 05:05:10 PM
If they were serious about saving lives rather than crusading against cars, they'd have pedestrians cross streets during all-ped phases to eliminate the conflict with turning traffic and crack down on jaywalking. This would also have the side effect of reducing red light running by making it possible for traffic to actually make their turns when the light is green.
It's true that there's far, far more that could be, and needs to be done, to improve the vehicle/pedestrian interface. And there's some that's actually underway, with traffic calming measures popping up in many places, but not nearly at a scale that will have a huge effect. The city needs a comprehensive overhaul of its physical highway plant, particularly in its Moses-era greenway corridors where intersections are dangerously overpowered, and, yes, of its signal phase practices. And it needs an overhaul of its driving mentality, which should be perfectly attainable if we only knew how to do it on purpose. After all, the subway mentality was overhauled from "it's dirty and dangerous" to "it's clean and safe, though we do get bent out of shape over minor disruptions to its service". And the Times Square mentality got overhauled from "fake weed and cheap hos" to "Disneyland". So clearly, it's possible–and would be possible whether or not the speed limit changed, I should add.
But to frame it as a choice of anti-cars versus pro-lives seems disingenuous, as it suggests an animus far more concerted than most governments are capable of exercising. Real life just isn't that black-and-white.
The problem with Vision Zero is that it exclusively targets cars. It's not hard to read something in to that. There are a zillion things pedestrians can do to lower the pedestrian death rate, but just mentioning them seems to be taboo these days.
Quote from: vdeane on November 10, 2014, 01:04:47 PM
The problem with Vision Zero is that it exclusively targets cars. It's not hard to read something in to that. There are a zillion things pedestrians can do to lower the pedestrian death rate, but just mentioning them seems to be taboo these days.
Regardless, there will always be the compelling arguments that motorists own a disproportional share of the responsibility because their actions are disproportionately more potentially deadly than a pedestrian, and the fact that they are in the minority in New York. So the burden of responsibility will always be placed more heavily on them.
Pedestrians need to stop wearing short skirts.
Quote from: NE2 on November 10, 2014, 01:53:02 PM
Pedestrians need to stop wearing short skirts.
Blasphemer!
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2014, 01:46:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 10, 2014, 01:04:47 PM
The problem with Vision Zero is that it exclusively targets cars. It's not hard to read something in to that. There are a zillion things pedestrians can do to lower the pedestrian death rate, but just mentioning them seems to be taboo these days.
Regardless, there will always be the compelling arguments that motorists own a disproportional share of the responsibility because their actions are disproportionately more potentially deadly than a pedestrian, and the fact that they are in the minority in New York. So the burden of responsibility will always be placed more heavily on them.
In boating the rules are that more maneuverable vehicles yield to less maneuverable vehicles. Not asking pedestrians to do common sense things like "look both ways before crossing the street" and "don't jaywalk" strikes me as like forcing ocean liners to swerve around jet skis.
Quote from: NE2 on November 10, 2014, 01:53:02 PM
Pedestrians need to stop wearing short skirts.
NEVER! Short skirts (especially with boots and tights) make the world go round!
Quote from: NE2 on November 10, 2014, 01:53:02 PM
Pedestrians need to stop wearing short skirts.
And bridge inspectors need to stop being subject to gravity. Saying they should be tied off when working at elevation so they don't fall is blaming the victim!
The important distinction between "short skirts" and construction safety or pedestrian safety is that in the former case we are talking about deliberate assault while in the latter case we are talking about accidents. If a pedestrian gets hit by a car it is most likely because the driver did not see them. This could be because the driver did something reckless... or it could be because the pedestrian did something reckless. If I walk out from between two parked cars in the middle of the block and run into the street without looking (something New Yorkers have been known to do!), is it really fair to say it's not my fault if I get hit?
Nonetheless I do think that this "can't blame the victim" form of political correctness is part of why adjusting pedestrian behavior isn't the focus. We tend to want to be sympathetic with the person who gets hit even if objectively it's their own damn fault. Also add in that every New Yorker is a pedestrian but the majority aren't drivers and you are indeed seeing a streak of always blame the driver because the majority must rule the minority to be at fault.
Even still, that is not so much the problem I (at least) have with the speed limit drop. Saying traffic should slow down for safety is a sound argument. But saying lowering the speed limit slows traffic down is a false equivalency. Nobody is going to slow down just because the city changes a bunch of signs. It's a lip service maneuver more than a serious way of tackling the problem.
Common sense says don't operate heavy machinery if you're not able to avoid crashing it.
Quote from: NE2 on November 10, 2014, 10:32:28 PM
Common sense says don't operate heavy machinery if you're not able to avoid crashing it.
But there are also a boatload of dumb pedestrians. The locals aren't the problem. It's the damn tourists walking/driving around that cause many of the issues.
Common sense says don't operate heavy machinery if you're not able to avoid crashing it, even into 'dumb pedestrians'.
Quote from: NE2 on November 10, 2014, 10:32:28 PM
Common sense says don't operate heavy machinery if you're not able to avoid crashing it.
Common sense also says not to run under the operator's bucket in his blind spot.
Quote from: NE2 on November 10, 2014, 10:37:34 PM
Common sense says don't operate heavy machinery if you're not able to avoid crashing it, even into 'dumb pedestrians'.
Try telling that to the engineer of a locomotive who cannot stop for almost a mile. We have at least one of these every week around Chicagoland.
Quote from: vdeane on November 10, 2014, 01:04:47 PM
The problem with Vision Zero is that it exclusively targets cars. It's not hard to read something in to that. There are a zillion things pedestrians can do to lower the pedestrian death rate, but just mentioning them seems to be taboo these days.
Without doubt, pedestrians bear some of the responsibility. But my point is that there's a difference between a program that disproportionately affects motor vehicles, whether by error or by necessity, and one that is based on outright animus towards them, as a "crusade against cars" would be. Perhaps you meant that more figuratively than I took it, but that's a danger in persuasive writing I suppose.
As to pedestrian violations contributing to accidents, I have recently found myself committing more violations that I used to, simply because it gives me options to avoid conflicts with vehicles. If I cross only at the right time and place, which I endeavored to do for quite some time, I invariably come into conflict with turning, speeding, inattentive traffic–well, traffic in general–because green lights and walk signals tend to appear at the same time. However, by crossing mid-block, away from intersections and points of conflict, I can often choose to cross when there is observably no oncoming traffic from any direction. And by crossing during a don't walk phase, I can have much greater confidence that a turning vehicle that might pose danger isn't going to attempt it at this moment.
So this tends to indicate that intersection and signal redesign needs to be a major part of the program, and the literature suggests that it will be (intersection at least; not so sure about signal).
There's certainly a lot of difference between crossing mid-block or jaywalking after checking to make sure traffic won't conflict and someone feeling like they should be able to just stroll about whenever regardless of what's going on with traffic just because they're a pedestrian. And there certainly aren't many people who outright want to ban cars (though there are a few) more so than reduce driving and change the car culture that developed (which can be good, but I tend to disagree with methods that feel like they're punishing drivers).
Quote from: Brandon on November 11, 2014, 09:24:33 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 10, 2014, 10:37:34 PM
Common sense says don't operate heavy machinery if you're not able to avoid crashing it, even into 'dumb pedestrians'.
Try telling that to the engineer of a locomotive who cannot stop for almost a mile. We have at least one of these every week around Chicagoland.
Yeah, I was wondering if NE2 would also apply that logic to a train.
Trains are operated by trained professionals on private right-of-way. Do you really want to go there?
Quote from: NE2 on November 11, 2014, 12:43:23 PM
Trains are operated by trained professionals on private right-of-way. Do you really want to go there?
Private ROW that is easily accessible. People are hit by trains quite often in New York.
Not what I'm saying. Do you want to restrict your driving to private ROW?
Quote from: NE2 on November 11, 2014, 01:59:56 PM
Not what I'm saying. Do you want to restrict your driving to private ROW?
Want to account for buses hitting pedestrians as well? And there's still streetcar tracks on public ROW in parts of the US and Canada. Your argument is straw.
Bus drivers never drive shittily.
Quote from: NE2 on November 11, 2014, 04:40:37 PM
Bus drivers never drive shittily.
Neither do bicyclists.
And cyclists kill pedestrians how often? Once? Fuck off.
Quote from: NE2 on November 11, 2014, 04:40:37 PM
Bus drivers never drive shittily.
Riiiiiiiiight.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/18/pedestrian-hit-by-bus-in-streeterville/
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-08/news/chi-megabus-hits-pedestrian-in-west-loop-20120807_1_megabus-accident-overpass-pillar-bus-line
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-06/news/chi-person-hit-by-cta-bus-20120106_1_cta-bus-stroger-hospital-condition
http://www.nbcchicago.com/traffic/transit/CTA-Bus-Clips-Pedestrian-136803633.html
Take your pick of this small sample of articles.
Quote from: vdeane on November 11, 2014, 12:39:41 PM
There's certainly a lot of difference between crossing mid-block or jaywalking after checking to make sure traffic won't conflict and someone feeling like they should be able to just stroll about whenever regardless of what's going on with traffic just because they're a pedestrian. And there certainly aren't many people who outright want to ban cars (though there are a few) more so than reduce driving and change the car culture that developed (which can be good, but I tend to disagree with methods that feel like they're punishing drivers).
Agreed about the pedestrians, although I don't think people stroll around just because they're a pedestrian, but because a) they're not paying attention, or b) they're New Yorkers and it's their duty/right to be in a hurry at all times, even (especially?) if it actually makes their trip take longer.
I would also oppose measures that arbitrarily punish drivers, but I don't share the observation that that's going on, particularly. Nothing is being asked of drivers that wasn't already their obligation. Right now the culture is like "ugh, stupid pedestrian in the crosswalk made me have to stop at the stop sign!" when it needs to be "there's a stop sign; I'll stop at it. Then I'll see if there are any pedestrians around."
Quote from: empirestate on November 11, 2014, 05:50:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 11, 2014, 12:39:41 PM
There's certainly a lot of difference between crossing mid-block or jaywalking after checking to make sure traffic won't conflict and someone feeling like they should be able to just stroll about whenever regardless of what's going on with traffic just because they're a pedestrian. And there certainly aren't many people who outright want to ban cars (though there are a few) more so than reduce driving and change the car culture that developed (which can be good, but I tend to disagree with methods that feel like they're punishing drivers).
Agreed about the pedestrians, although I don't think people stroll around just because they're a pedestrian, but because a) they're not paying attention, or b) they're New Yorkers and it's their duty/right to be in a hurry at all times, even (especially?) if it actually makes their trip take longer.
I would also oppose measures that arbitrarily punish drivers, but I don't share the observation that that's going on, particularly. Nothing is being asked of drivers that wasn't already their obligation. Right now the culture is like "ugh, stupid pedestrian in the crosswalk made me have to stop at the stop sign!" when it needs to be "there's a stop sign; I'll stop at it. Then I'll see if there are any pedestrians around."
Drivers in the eastern half of the state usually stop at stop signs or red lights regardless. Certainly isn't Buffalo, where people think that a right on red has priority over every other movement and stop signs with a white outline are optional.
Quote from: cl94 on November 11, 2014, 06:13:17 PM
Drivers in the eastern half of the state usually stop at stop signs or red lights regardless. Certainly isn't Buffalo, where people think that a right on red has priority over every other movement and stop signs with a white outline are optional.
Wait, are we talking about the southern half of the eastern half of the state, or the other half of the same half? I was only talking about the half of the state that NYC is in; and even then, not about that whole half, nor even the whole of the half half, but only that fraction of the hemi-half that directly comprises the five boroughs.