Pedestrian accidents

[NE2]

You could save pedestrian lives too by banning jaywalking and rigorously enforcing it, but people scream bloody murder whenever that's suggested. 

Not this shit again...

[vdeane]

Who needs to discuss it at length in this thread?  I think we can all agree that car-pedestrian accidents would be significantly reduced if all pedestrians crossed only during the walk cycle.  You would then assert that it's unreasonable to ask them to do so (which I can assume given the other thread), thereby proving my point here.

Everybody thinks "one fatality is one too many", but only until the proposed methods to save that one person causes an inconvenience to themselves.

[NE2]

I think we can all agree that car-pedestrian accidents would be significantly reduced if all pedestrians crossed only during the walk cycle.

You think wrong.

[Alps]

I think we can all agree that car-pedestrian accidents would be significantly reduced if all pedestrians crossed only during the walk cycle.

You think wrong.

Unless you have a study showing otherwise, I would agree with deanej on this one.

Now, I had the opportunity to view a HAWK signal at NJ 27. That's a clusterfuck if there ever were one. People have no idea what to do on flashing yellow, solid yellow, solid red, or flashing red. They'll blow through it, or stay stopped the entire time, or inch through. I think it's more dangerous to have the HAWK because it gives the illusion of safety. It really should be a standard three-phase signal. But we'll see.

[NE2]

I think we can all agree that car-pedestrian accidents would be significantly reduced if all pedestrians crossed only during the walk cycle.

You think wrong.

Unless you have a study showing otherwise, I would agree with deanej on this one.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810968.pdf has some data. Page 19 says that over 3/4 of fatalities were not at intersections. Page 31 gives 'fail to obey traffic control' as only 1.5% of the total. There's not enough information about what the various causes mean, though.

But think about it - if you're in a hurry and arrive during a flashing don't walk and have the choice of waiting 5 minutes for a walk, or going slightly upstream and waiting for a gap in traffic (which is legal if there's no traffic light at the next intersection), you'll probably choose the latter (depending on how much traffic there is and how platooned it is). And it's obviously safer to play Frogger than to beat the don't walk clock.

[Special K]

Strictly anecdotal, but 100% of all the close calls I've had as a pedestrian vs. a car have been during a walk cycle.  Two just tonight as I was out for a run.  Of particular danger are right-turning vehicles on red.

[corco]

Now, I had the opportunity to view a HAWK signal at NJ 27. That's a clusterfuck if there ever were one. People have no idea what to do on flashing yellow, solid yellow, solid red, or flashing red. They'll blow through it, or stay stopped the entire time, or inch through. I think it's more dangerous to have the HAWK because it gives the illusion of safety. It really should be a standard three-phase signal. But we'll see.

I don't understand why a traffic device that's so counterintuitive had to be created. When I first moved to Tucson, home of those godawful things, I had to actually find the driver's manual to figure out what to do, and you still often see people who don't know what to do (usually erring on the side of caution and staying stopped until the light goes off completely)- but that should never be the case with a traffic control device.

Wouldn't a two light setup with one yellow and one red have worked just as well- push to activate flashing yellow, which transitions to flashing red, which extinguishes after the button is pushed? That would avoid the railroad-style alternating lights.

[NE2]

Agreed about the HAWK. The RRFB is much more intuitive and probably just as visible (as long as the road isn't 14 lanes wide).

Of course these are still useless without actual enforcement. If someone's in or within one lane of your side of the crosswalk, stop and wait for them to leave it.

[Alps]

Oh, I HATE the flashing red. I made that exact comment to the proposed 2009 MUTCD but the HAWK went through anyway and they said it wouldn't be confused because it's smaller lights, closer together. That doesn't help me from 2,000 feet away when deciding whether to bear right or left. I like the concept, just not the execution at all. Why not just have a four-head signal with two flashing phases and two solid phases?

[agentsteel53]

That doesn't help me from 2,000 feet away when deciding whether to bear right or left.

wait, the HAWK tells you which half of the intersection (left or right) the pedestrian is in?

[Alps]

That doesn't help me from 2,000 feet away when deciding whether to bear right or left.

wait, the HAWK tells you which half of the intersection (left or right) the pedestrian is in?

you come to a fork in the road. you intend to bear right, but see flashing red lights. thinking it is a train, you bear left and go the long way.

[agentsteel53]

you come to a fork in the road. you intend to bear right, but see flashing red lights. thinking it is a train, you bear left and go the long way.

you're gonna have to cross those railroad tracks sometime.

if you're only 2000 feet away from the signal, the chances are that you'll encounter that train, regardless of which branch you take.

[NE2]

Ever hear of a bri[censored by the TSA]

[roadfro]

Agreed about the HAWK. The RRFB is much more intuitive and probably just as visible (as long as the road isn't 14 lanes wide).

Of course these are still useless without actual enforcement. If someone's in or within one lane of your side of the crosswalk, stop and wait for them to leave it.

The RRFB is essentially a modified warning beacon, so it doesn't bear the legal requirement to stop as the HAWK signal or a "normal" ped xing signal does.

Oh, I HATE the flashing red. I made that exact comment to the proposed 2009 MUTCD but the HAWK went through anyway and they said it wouldn't be confused because it's smaller lights, closer together. <...> I like the concept, just not the execution at all. Why not just have a four-head signal with two flashing phases and two solid phases?

I agree that the HAWK signals are a great idea but the actual sequence of lights is not intuitive. I don't see why they couldn't have kept with a standard signal head for these types of crossings. A four-section head could have worked:

[SR]
[FR]  or  [SR][FR]
[SY]          [SY]
[FY]           [FY]

Flashing yellow starts for a few seconds on pedestrian pushbutton activation. Steady yellow to transition to a steady red. Light stays steady red through the walk phase, then goes to flashing red during the flashing don't walk. When the steady hand appears and after a short ped buffer, the vehicle signal goes off until next activation.

[Zmapper]

Count me as one more who hates the HAWK beacons. The one near me takes 20 seconds from button push to walk sign. If there is no traffic I could be on the other side of the street by then.

I see that the city considered installing HAWK beacons for a trail that parallels a railroad corridor, but went with standard traffic lights instead. Could it be that the double meaning of flashing red lights is a very dangerous situation to allow? From the eyes of your average motorist, at one intersection "alternating red = pedestrians, treat like stop sign." At another intersection, "alternating red = DANGER! DANGER! Train approaching! Don't even THINK about beating this light."

[NE2]

At a HAWK, are you allowed to go after stopping on a solid red? The signs are unclear - "CROSSWALK STOP ON RED", and if I came across one and saw that nobody was crossing I'd stop, look around, and proceed cautiously.

[cpzilliacus]

Who needs to discuss it at length in this thread?  I think we can all agree that car-pedestrian accidents would be significantly reduced if all pedestrians crossed only during the walk cycle.  You would then assert that it's unreasonable to ask them to do so (which I can assume given the other thread), thereby proving my point here.

Everybody thinks "one fatality is one too many", but only until the proposed methods to save that one person causes an inconvenience to themselves.

How about reducing the number of pedestrians that walk along streets and roads while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs?  It does not get much attention, but there are a lot of fatalities caused by "probable pedestrian error."

[Brandon]

Who needs to discuss it at length in this thread?  I think we can all agree that car-pedestrian accidents would be significantly reduced if all pedestrians crossed only during the walk cycle.  You would then assert that it's unreasonable to ask them to do so (which I can assume given the other thread), thereby proving my point here.

Everybody thinks "one fatality is one too many", but only until the proposed methods to save that one person causes an inconvenience to themselves.

How about reducing the number of pedestrians that walk along streets and roads while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs?  It does not get much attention, but there are a lot of fatalities caused by "probable pedestrian error."

A lot of fatalities are caused by people, driving or walking, under the influence.  As an example, we get pedestrians on the expressways around here who are obviously under the influence, and they get pancaked by a truck.  Then we had a huffer up in the north suburbs who ran down a 5 year old kid on the sidewalk when she, the driver, was under the influence from huffing some sort of substance.

It's not the speed, it's not the vehicle, it's the alcohol and drugs.  Shoot, without either alcohol or drugs, I'll bet we could cut the fatality rate in half or more.

[Alps]

Shoot, without human behavior, I'll bet we could cut the fatality rate in half or more.

We tried Prohibition. Next.

[Brandon]

Shoot, without human behavior, I'll bet we could cut the fatality rate in half or more.

We tried Prohibition. Next.

I know, it didn't work.  It's more of a wistful wish for a voluntary change I know won't happen.

Maybe we just need to accept that fatalities will happen because people are people and people are stupid.

[NE2]

Or maybe we need to realize the obvious fact that fatalities caused by the dead person and fatalities caused by someone else are not comparable.

[roadfro]

At a HAWK, are you allowed to go after stopping on a solid red? The signs are unclear - "CROSSWALK STOP ON RED", and if I came across one and saw that nobody was crossing I'd stop, look around, and proceed cautiously.

At a HAWK, you have to remain stopped during the solid steady red, but are allowed to proceed after a full stop on the flashing/alternating red.

The sign is yet another confusing aspect of the implementation...

[jeffandnicole]

Shoot, without human behavior, I'll bet we could cut the fatality rate in half or more.

We tried Prohibition. Next.

Well, after the 100% death rate in the quest to eliminating human behavor, the fatality rate will be extremely low.

[Kacie Jane]

At a HAWK, are you allowed to go after stopping on a solid red? The signs are unclear - "CROSSWALK STOP ON RED", and if I came across one and saw that nobody was crossing I'd stop, look around, and proceed cautiously.

At a HAWK, you have to remain stopped during the solid steady red, but are allowed to proceed after a full stop on the flashing/alternating red.

The sign is yet another confusing aspect of the implementation...

While I don't particularly like HAWKs, I don't see the above as a reason why.

The solid and flashing red function identically as they do at a typical signal.  Solid red = stop and remain stopped.  Flashing red = stop and proceed when clear.

Similarly I disagree that the "STOP ON RED" sign is confusing.  Whether the red is solid or flashing, you must stop on red (the only question being for how long).

[roadfro]

At a HAWK, are you allowed to go after stopping on a solid red? The signs are unclear - "CROSSWALK STOP ON RED", and if I came across one and saw that nobody was crossing I'd stop, look around, and proceed cautiously.

At a HAWK, you have to remain stopped during the solid steady red, but are allowed to proceed after a full stop on the flashing/alternating red.

The sign is yet another confusing aspect of the implementation...

While I don't particularly like HAWKs, I don't see the above as a reason why.

The solid and flashing red function identically as they do at a typical signal.  Solid red = stop and remain stopped.  Flashing red = stop and proceed when clear.

Similarly I disagree that the "STOP ON RED" sign is confusing.  Whether the red is solid or flashing, you must stop on red (the only question being for how long).

I think the overall operation is too different from a normal traffic signal operation to be readily understood clearly. This also confuses the meaning of the alternating flashing red used in a HAWK (full stop, proceed if there's no peds) with the alternating flashing red used at rail grade crossings (stop and wait for lights to turn off after train passes). While the scenario is very different, the lights displayed are the same--although I do concede the point that the signals and physical characteristics of a ped xing versus a RR xing *should* be enough of a clue to the difference.

The problem I see with the stop on red sign is that since the operation is so different, the sign does not adequately explain the operation when faced with steady red versus alternating flashing red. It's not an intuitive situation, and the sign doesn't clear up all the mechanics of the HAWK operation.