|
|
|
|
|
by ajuc
256 days ago
|
|
The algorithm (if followed) does not produce collisions. Pedestrians have the priority, and in many countries (inlcuding Poland where I live) cars have to stop even if nobody's on the pedestrian crossing yet - it's enough that pedestrians are approaching the crossing. This has changed in the last 10 years in Poland, and there have been numerous angry debates. It was introduced anyway, and the safety improved. It's only a problem if we let drivers get away with making it a problem. The inherent asymmetry in the driver-pedestrian relationship must be taken into account by the law and road design. |
|
Yes, in magical textbook land sure. In reality there are signaled crosswalks and most pedestrians abide by them so it's not clear if any given pedestrian wants to cross at that time and the pedestrian is also looking for traffic coming from the right if they're crossing against the signal (perfectly legal, but ill advised in the face of social norms) it's a recipe for confusion. Multiply by a nation of hundreds of millions and you get a lot of near misses and accidents.
>It's only a problem if we let drivers get away with making it a problem. The inherent asymmetry in the driver-pedestrian relationship must be taken into account by the law and road design.
I propose a 3 step solution to this "problem":
1)ignore anyone who talks like that from any side of the issue because they're probably gonna make it worse and not better and piss everyone off in the process and make the problem harder to solve.
2) Slap up "no right on red" signs and adjust signals accordingly
3) Measure results and address gaps.