These cranky new pedestrian crossings

[supermono]

So since dinosaurs roamed the earth we had the friendly green man beckoning us from the other side of the road, flashing, turning red, as we walked so we knew the score and had the reassurance to make the crossing safely and confidently.

Now some moron has redesigned perfection into a crazy scheme whereby you have to leave the kerb and lose sight immediately of the traffic light status.

I'm assuming these are the product of some vanity scheme from a halfwit in the public sector somewhere or the brother in law of someone selling pedestrian crossing kit.

But I can't find anything much on the web, anyone know the story?

I'm assuming the kill rate on crossings will now increase. Absolute lunacy,

[supermono]

Utterpiffle said:

Who employs these moron town designers?

We do! They just don't get held to account so schemes like the one you describe and the wky crossings in the OP come to pass.

[supermono]

Symbolica said:

Having the red and green signals much closer makes life easier for visually impaired people as well.

Well I guess if equality is king the new crossing means blind people and people who can see are equally unable to know the colour of the man once they've stepped into the road. That's a backward step, by the way.

And are you speaking as someone with bad/no eyesight or just a self appointed representative thinking you know their view?

[supermono]

MrTrilby said:

Why is it a backwards step? Once you've made your decision to step into the road, what difference does it make which colour is showing - after all you've already made your decision and are already in the road. Provided you step out whilst the green man is showing, a combination of timings and sensors gives you enough time to cross.

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. As regards the sensing why not add that to the existing neat system instead of pointlessly dicking witth something that was great?

I can just see the anti car green nut now coming up with this. They hate that cars are even allowed in towns at all (whilst charging them handsomely for parking and bleeding the retail outlets dry with tax) I imagine they hate having to hurry when the green man flashes to suggest the machines are about to be freed.

Anyway my prediction is that after the bodies start rolling in it'll quietly return to sense...

[supermono]

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 seems unwilling to accept this, ergo even if he is not a 'kipper, it'll be like arguing with a 'kipper they will just drag you down to idiot level and then use their experience to beat you ...

Unwilling lol, I'm also unwilling to accept camera vans hiding around corners charging people 14 days after they were speeding helps road safety and unwilling to accept traffic wardens issuing tickets from CCTV helps to keep traffic moving. I'm unwilling to accept that 18 years of stable global temperatures supports the notion that carbon dioxide is bad. There are many accepted concepts I'm unwilling to accept, it's called THINKING. And it's a skill that's paid rather well over the years. Maybe others should try it