[toast0]

It really depends on the dynamics of the intersection. In a downtown with pedestrians active at all times of the day, they're not really needed, pedestrians can be assumed.

Suburban intersections really need them and I wouldn't consider them 'the most remote' ... the intersections are large enough that most people can't or won't cross on a minimum length green, so the button lengthens the green time. Additionally, traffic patterns vary, and waiting for a car to trigger the occupancy signal might be a longer wait, and anyway to encourage pedestrianism (false positives from people jumping out of cars isn't that big of a deal in the scheme of things either), the beg button often reduces cycle times to minimums until the pedestrian can cross. The alternative of including pedestrians in all cycles by default is a waste of everyone's time, including pedestrians, given the low pedestrian usage.

Maybe if there was a good way to measure pedestrians on approach and intersection entrance, you could do the same thing you do for cars, and cycle in advance of their arrival and confirm they cleared the intersection before cycling further, but that's asking for a lot.

In remote intersections, you only really need a button if there's significant traffic. Otherwise, crossing whenever there's a clearing is probably better, IMHO. But a button for slow crossers isn't a bad idea.

[estebank]

> Otherwise, crossing whenever there's a clearing is probably better, IMHO.

That's only safe if there are a reasonable number of lanes, namely no more than 2. Beyond that the width is higher, the possibility of a car far away blocking the view of another car slightly behind increases and the driving speed of the cars is increased because it feels safe enough for them. And from what I've seen in the West Coast, narrow human-sized roads are reserved exclusively for back alleys.