These cranky new pedestrian crossings
Discussion
MrTrilby said:
supermono said:
It's a backward step because a leap of faith is required instead of the friendly green man or the prohibiting red man in full view.
Huh? The green man is still there, you just have to look somewhere different for him. And in doing so, you're also looking at the oncoming traffic, so you'll spot the traffic that jumps the red light, and not step out in front of it. Contrast that with the traditional location for the green man, which encourages you to stare straight ahead, and blindly step off into the road without checking the traffic has actually stopped first.Utterpiffle said:
The recently replaced the two high street zebra crossings in my home town with "courtesy crossings".
No one even sees them, (they are just different coloured tarmac) so cars just drive through. These courtesy crossings have no legal standing, so if someone hits a pedestrian when they are half across, it will be pedestrians fault. Our small market town is full of old folk that don't exactly move quickly across the road, and one of these crossings is right next to a primary school.
Who employs these moron town designers?
Yes, same in a town near us - and the Council have been criticised (for spending 100k+ of a bit of coloured 'mac) plus their comments that the pedestrians need to be careful because it's not a real crossing. The pedestrians are left in the situation where they either a)Recognise they don't have a crossing and dash across whilst observing the traffic (like they always have done) orNo one even sees them, (they are just different coloured tarmac) so cars just drive through. These courtesy crossings have no legal standing, so if someone hits a pedestrian when they are half across, it will be pedestrians fault. Our small market town is full of old folk that don't exactly move quickly across the road, and one of these crossings is right next to a primary school.
Who employs these moron town designers?
b)Mistakenly amble across thinking they have a recognised crossing and the traffic should give way to them.
So all-in-all a lose,lose situation, where the public have paid over 100k for a situation that is worse than previously.
Council folk who made the decision should be sacked or forced to pay for their folly - not rewarded with bonuses or golden handshakes!
mph1977 said:
MrTrilby said:
supermono said:
It's a backward step because a leap of faith is required instead of the friendly green man or the prohibiting red man in full view.
Huh? The green man is still there, you just have to look somewhere different for him. And in doing so, you're also looking at the oncoming traffic, so you'll spot the traffic that jumps the red light, and not step out in front of it. Contrast that with the traditional location for the green man, which encourages you to stare straight ahead, and blindly step off into the road without checking the traffic has actually stopped first.
supermono said:
mph1977 said:
MrTrilby said:
supermono said:
It's a backward step because a leap of faith is required instead of the friendly green man or the prohibiting red man in full view.
Huh? The green man is still there, you just have to look somewhere different for him. And in doing so, you're also looking at the oncoming traffic, so you'll spot the traffic that jumps the red light, and not step out in front of it. Contrast that with the traditional location for the green man, which encourages you to stare straight ahead, and blindly step off into the road without checking the traffic has actually stopped first.you are unwilling to acknowledge that the current generatio nof pedestrian crossings is a wee bit more sophisticated than the simple timers that the original pelicans used
your attitude towards speed enforcemetn and parking enforcement betrays your typical to the selfish and immature attitude towards the law
and a climate change denier to boot
if you aren;t a 'kipper have you considered joining them as they just a muddle headed and convinced of the their power of their faculties , despite the obvious gaps and holes in thought processes as you are protraying..
carinaman said:
If it's a busy crossing how can all of the users see the green man on the push button box? If the green man is on the pole that I and all the other crossing users are walking towards everyone can see it.
If it's a busy crossing and you see all the traffic has stopped and the hordes of pedestrians around you are walking across the road, do you really need to see the green man to tell you that you can cross?The mistake people make is assuming the green man tells you that it is safe to cross. It doesn't. It tells you only that it's your turn to cross. You need too make your own decision over whether it's actually safe or not. Which is exactly what the new style crossings are designed to encourage.
MrTrilby said:
carinaman said:
If it's a busy crossing how can all of the users see the green man on the push button box? If the green man is on the pole that I and all the other crossing users are walking towards everyone can see it.
If it's a busy crossing and you see all the traffic has stopped and the hordes of pedestrians around you are walking across the road, do you really need to see the green man to tell you that you can cross?The mistake people make is assuming the green man tells you that it is safe to cross. It doesn't. It tells you only that it's your turn to cross. You need too make your own decision over whether it's actually safe or not. Which is exactly what the new style crossings are designed to encourage.
'Let's take that little green man indicator that's worked for years and place it at hip height on the pavement besides the button pusher where the other users of the crossing will struggle to see it'.
I think having 2 legs and being a biped may indicate that I am probably not a Lemming.
You seem to be missing the point. On a Pelican crossing you need to be able to see the green man because it gives an indication that the time available for crossing is coming to an end. On a Puffin crossing the time allowed varies based on the speed/number of people crossing so you don't need to see the green man once you are crossing.
Cat
Cat
V8 Fettler said:
I wonder what the failure mode of the "person is crossing" sensor is. Keep the lights on red until fixed? Default to a timer?
what does the law say about the actions of a driver when faced with a pedestrian crossing in front of him/ her ?what does the law say a green traffic light means ?
please read mrtrillby's post immediately below the one i'm quoting (posted at 0813 sundany morning)
Why can't these new, cleverer crossings have a little green man on the post across the road like the old ones for those legacy users more familiar with pelican crossings?
Do extra features always result in extra benefits? New must be better mustn't it?
When did front wing indicator repeaters come in? 1980 ish?
Fine, have a little green man on the push button box, that or none of the other features doesn't necessarily mean that the little green man on the far post has to be pensioned off.
Do extra features always result in extra benefits? New must be better mustn't it?
When did front wing indicator repeaters come in? 1980 ish?
Fine, have a little green man on the push button box, that or none of the other features doesn't necessarily mean that the little green man on the far post has to be pensioned off.
Edited by carinaman on Sunday 23 November 22:38
Is this thread about puffin crossings???
grumbledoak said:
So, just like a Zebra crossing only far more expensive, then?
Zebra crossings come with their own batch of issues, like for example pedestrians assuming cars can stop instantly; and in the absence of a traffic light to give them a clue, cars not noticing the crossing is even there. carinaman said:
Why can't these new, cleverer crossings have a little green man on the post across the road like the old ones for those legacy users more familiar with pelican crossings?
Do extra features always result in extra benefits?
I'm sure if you really think about it, you can you work out the answers to your questions from the information already posted to this thread. And if you can't, then the way the new style crossings force you to look and check that the traffic has actually stopped may well end up extending your life.Do extra features always result in extra benefits?
mph1977 said:
V8 Fettler said:
I wonder what the failure mode of the "person is crossing" sensor is. Keep the lights on red until fixed? Default to a timer?
what does the law say about the actions of a driver when faced with a pedestrian crossing in front of him/ her ?what does the law say a green traffic light means ?
please read mrtrillby's post immediately below the one i'm quoting (posted at 0813 sundany morning)
Fastpedeller said:
Council folk who made the decision should be sacked or forced to pay for their folly - not rewarded with bonuses or golden handshakes!
What Council have you ever had experience of that does this? I've had zero. And I've worked in local authorities for YEARS. I'm not aware of a single council employee ever getting a non-promotional bonus.
To the people frothing about all this, the crossings are not designed by the guys that specify their installation. Installations are heavily regulated, even before they're suggested for public use. Once designed, and pre-installation, they are fully safety-audited. And again, once installed. And then again, after it's been in use for a couple of months. And then AGAIN, after it's been in use for a year or so.
But there's no point saying all this, becuase one of the usual suspects will come along soon and say that it's all incompetence, deliberately trying to kill kids, blood on our hands etc.
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards...
Have a read of this. Or don't and carry on b
hing. Whatever. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff