Green Man at crossroads

ciaran75

Guys,

Does anyone know what idiot has decided to change junctions/crossroads over the last year so that traffic now stop on all four directions while the green man comes on.

If you look they come on for 30 seconds every 2 minutes regardless of people so basically thats 15 minutes every hour nothing moves

They will probably argue safety but irish people DON'T wait 90 seconds to cross a road when the traffic light is already red and no traffic moving, they just cross. 90 seconds doesn't sound like much but when your waiting it is.

I've seen it done once or twice in australia & germany but only for really busy pedestrian junctions. eg. It works fine for the dame st / georges st junction as lots of people cross but they have it at junctions where you get tiny numbers crossing daily.

No wonder traffic doesn't move in the city as we've lights every 50 meters, all on their own timing system, nothing is linked.

Cheers,

Trampas

say the lights have only one green light and no filters. how would you work the pedestrian lights then at a crossroad?

Stark

I love the pedestrian trick of "start crossing the road. As your crossing, hit the button." 30 seconds later, lights go red and not a pedestrian in sight.

ciaran75

generally the way it was done before was

eg.
traffic moving north/south have 1 minute green light while traffic east/west have red light with the green man for say 30/45 seconds then allowing some time for traffic to turn east/west if required.

then visa versa,

Del2005

Trampas wrote: »

say the lights have only one green light and no filters. how would you work the pedestrian lights then at a crossroad?

Same way as lots of other countries do it. The pedestrian goes in the same direction of traffic flow. If anyone is turning the pedestrian has right of way over traffic so everything stops till pedestrians cross the road. All it takes is a bit of information and enforcement.

murphaph

Del2005 wrote: »

Same way as lots of other countries do it. The pedestrian goes in the same direction of traffic flow. If anyone is turning the pedestrian has right of way over traffic so everything stops till pedestrians cross the road. All it takes is a bit of information and enforcement.

Yup-instant massive increase in junction capacity and consequent reduction in congestion. You'll now get all the arguments that 'irish drivers couldn't handle it' etc. etc. but in fact I think irish drivers are pretty good at giving way to pedestrians where required by law.

Run_to_da_hills

Its got to do with the audio for the blind. A blind guy could be waiting at a corner and the audio beep for the all clear for one direction at an intersection but not for the other. The guy subsequently walks out in front on an on coming bus and gets flattened. To play safe the council halts traffic in all directions. Ireland is away ahead the US & Australia on this one.

Stark

A good idea in the cases where audio crossings exist. I've seen the four-way green man setup in many cases where there were no beepers at the crossings though.

bazzer

It's strange when people talked about getting knocked down, it always seems to be by a bus!

Stark

Probably because you stand a chance of getting up again after being knocked down by a car, whereas a bus is a different story.

ciaran75

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its got to do with the audio for the blind. To play safe the council halts traffic in all directions. Ireland is away ahead the US & Australia on this one.

At least its some sort of explanation but does mean the rest of us suffer cause of it. Could they not come up with a better solution so blind people know when to cross safely.

The US will never put this in to practice as now even on a green man traffic is still allowed turn but pedestrians get priority.

Zoney

If they did implement the system of allowing left-turn traffic filter with pedestrians crossing on side road, we should make use of the amber man that crossings here have - i.e. unless pedestrians have exclusivity, warn them to look out for maniac drivers by having flashing amber instead of green. Also drivers could have the flashing amber arrow left turn signal (already used for give way to through traffic on the other road) rather than a carte blanche green turn signal. Pedestrians could still press the button to wait for exclusivity (e.g. blind, elderly, buggy-laden or cautious pedestrians needing to cross).

I thought as regards beeping, different tones were used for the different crossings at the junction, also the beeping is very directional (although I guess if you have hearing in only one ear this is less useful). Anyway, certainly there are crossings (in Limerick at least) that have green pedestrian sequence at different times on different junction arms (facilitated by one way traffic restrictions) despite audio feedback.

Audio feedback is useful for ordinary pedestrians too (potentially more observable than signals across the road) - important obviously for it not to be misleading.

elekid

From a pedestrian point of view it's great when the entire crossroads gets the green man at once because it means you can cross from one corner to the opposite corner without having to wait twice as long for 2 seperate sets of lights to change. If anything I'd like to see it happen at more crossroads. Although it is crazy for it to happen when there is no one actually waiting to cross.

I know there are many good drivers out there (and posting in this thread) but from my daily experience of walking through Dublin city centre I can't say I'd trust a lot of drivers to behave if allowed to make turns through pedestrian crossings.

Pedestrian lights at junctions should only go red when someone wants to cross and have pressed the button, also the lights have intelligent controllers attached to road sensors, so why not use them!

So annoying having to wait for nonexistant traffic (vehicular & pedestrian)at the lights!

godtabh

A rap around red phase (all red phase) is considered the safest approach for pedestrian safety in built up areas. It reduces flow efficiency but increase pedestrian safety. It’s becoming more and more standard.

cyclopath2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Pedestrian lights at junctions should only go red when someone wants to cross and have pressed the button, also the lights have intelligent controllers attached to road sensors, so why not use them!

So annoying having to wait for nonexistant traffic (vehicular & pedestrian)at the lights!

Do you mean give priority to vehicular traffic at all times and only permit pedestrians to cross as and when convenient and permitted by drivers?

I think a first/come first/served system would be fairer.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Do you mean give priority to vehicular traffic at all times and only permit pedestrians to cross as and when convenient and permitted by drivers?

I think a first/come first/served system would be fairer.

No, he didn't say that at all, but you had to imagine it to further your platform...

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

No, he didn't say that at all, but you had to imagine it to further your platform...

Yes! thanks, as you have correctly understood, (rephrased for those that don't get it) what I mean is the lights respond to the needs of all users, but only when there is a requirement for them to cross.

cyclopath2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes! thanks, as you have correctly understood, (rephrased for those that don't get it) what I mean is the lights respond to the needs of all users, but only when there is a requirement for them to cross.

So signals for both vehicles and pedestrians on red until one or other arrives? And, whoever gets there first gets priority?

Present system gives priority to vehicles by default, so this would be a welcome change in favour of pedestrians, who are at present, unequally treated.

cyclopath2001

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

So signals for both vehicles and pedestrians on red until one or other arrives? And, whoever gets there first gets priority?

When it's quiet, yes there's nothing worse than waiting for the lights to go through a times sequence with tumbleweed at the other phases. If a pedestrian presses the button the lights will immediatly change for them as well as switch for the odd car that passes at those times.

Or even better (where possible), use the flashing amber phase (as used in the US)

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Present system gives priority to vehicles by default, so this would be a welcome change in favour of pedestrians, who are at present, unequally treated.

if the junction is in an area with a large pedestrian to vehicle ratio, then it makes sense to have pedestrians crossing "hard coded" in during busy times, the remainder of the time, use the sensors/buttons to allow the lights to respond to needs of all users.

MOH

Deleted User wrote: »

Pedestrian lights at junctions should only go red when someone wants to cross and have pressed the button, also the lights have intelligent controllers attached to road sensors, so why not use them!

So annoying having to wait for nonexistant traffic (vehicular & pedestrian)at the lights!

On the flip side, if cars are stopped at a red light where there's pedestrian lights, but there's nothing turning into the road (or it's one way), why don't the pedestrian lights automatically go green instead of staying red unless the button is pushed?

Doodah7

What really drives me mad are the junctions where the pedestrian crossings are activated even if there are no pedestrians. SDCC seem particularly guilty of this. Ends up that all four routes ast a junction wait for green-amber-red man sequence even though no-one pressed the button or is crossing the road. Complete waste of time...

MOH

MOH wrote: »

On the flip side, if cars are stopped at a red light where there's pedestrian lights, but there's nothing turning into the road (or it's one way), why don't the pedestrian lights automatically go green instead of staying red unless the button is pushed?

I think that already happens at some junctions (or part of) where there is no chance of road traffic crossing the pedestrians path, if it doesn't it should!

cyclopath2001

Personally, I'm in favour of removing traffic signals, lowering speed limits and having a first/come first served approach, with every other vehicle giving way and pedestrians having priority at all times. The delay caused by lower speeds might be compensated by smoother flowing traffic.

Traffic signals are a failed effort to regulate selfish behaviour.

cyclopath2001

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Personally, I'm in favour of removing traffic signals, lowering speed limits and having a first/come first served approach, with every other vehicle giving way and pedestrians having priority at all times. The delay caused by lower speeds might be compensated by smoother flowing traffic.

A recipe for creating the perfect conditions for road rage!.

FruitLover

bazzer wrote: »

It's strange when people talked about getting knocked down, it always seems to be by a bus!

Given Dublin Bus' track record, is it a surprise?

cyclopath2001

Deleted User wrote: »

A recipe for creating the perfect conditions for road rage!.

From what I see, we already have that.

There must be some way of getting people to respect each other?

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Personally, I'm in favour of removing traffic signals, lowering speed limits and having a first/come first served approach, with every other vehicle giving way and pedestrians having priority at all times. The delay caused by lower speeds might be compensated by smoother flowing traffic.

No, the reason you're in favour of lowering speed limits and removing traffic signals is to further your sole platform - that of the Cycling Facist - as no traffic signals would mean you could claim you were never in the wrong; and lower speed limits would make there little advantage to using a car.

Your woeful attempts at showing your 'knowledge' of the rules of the road and the basic tenets of safe driving demonstrate this thoroughly.

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

No, the reason you're in favour of lowering speed limits and removing traffic signals is to further your sole platform - that of the Cycling Facist - as no traffic signals would mean you could claim you were never in the wrong; and lower speed limits would make there little advantage to using a car.

Your woeful attempts at showing your 'knowledge' of the rules of the road and the basic tenets of safe driving demonstrate this thoroughly.

It's with some sadness That I read your abuse and lies. I am so sorry that you felt the need to attack me personally, but believe me, I do understand how threatened you must feel when ideals you believe to be sacred in are challenged. New ideas can be quite threatnening.

The advantage of using a car comes, quite often, at the expense of curtailing the rights of others.

The idea of lowering limits, removing signs and traffic signals is quite a valid one and is being tried elsewhere.

murphaph

The problem of misleading audio indicators to blind people at 4 way (or more compex) crossroads was solved many years ago and is in use in Germany and the UK (and to a limited extent in Dublin City also). You simply switch off the audio and use a tactile method. The vision impaired person simply holds a little knob which rotates (UK system) or they sometimes vibrate (that's what we and the germans use).

There is no good excuse for not implementing the "pedestrians with traffic fow" method. This method also encourages use of 'on path' cycle lanes, much despised by cyclists because they have to yield at every intersection to turning vehicles.

cyclopath2001

murphaph wrote: »

There is no good excuse for not implementing the "pedestrians with traffic fow" method. This method also encourages use of 'on path' cycle lanes, much despised by cyclists because they have to yield at every intersection to turning vehicles.

The arguments in favour of suitably adapted traffic signals for the visually impaired are quite strong. It's unlikely that at the speeds most vehicle drivers prefer to travel, that they will have time to appreciate the individual difficulties of a visually impaired person.

Pedestrians already have a range of laws giving them right-of-way at junctions but these are generally ignored by vehicle-drivers and not are enforced. For example, I've never seen anyone ticketed for failing to give way to pedestrians when coming out of a side-road or entrance. Examples:

A driver of a vehicle entering a public road from a place which is not a public road shall yield the right of way to all vehicles and pedestrians proceeding in either direction along the public road.....A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction by a road which is not a major road shall, notwithstanding that there is no traffic sign indicating that the last mentioned road is a major road, yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians on the major road.....A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

The function of traffic signals serves mostly to limit the right of way of pedestrians to cross and to give the most priority to vehicular traffic. This is due to the long delays between crossing phases, short crossing times and absurd impositions requiring people to wait/stop/cross up to three times the distance of the actual junction they wish to cross.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's with some sadness That I read your abuse and lies. I am so sorry that you felt the need to attack me personally, but believe me, I do understand how threatened you must feel when ideals you believe to be sacred in are challenged. New ideas can be quite threatnening.

The advantage of using a car comes, quite often, at the expense of curtailing the rights of others.

The idea of lowering limits, removing signs and traffic signals is quite a valid one and is being tried elsewhere.

Abuse - sort of
Lies - not at all. You're the person who claimed that brake-testing drivers was safe, for a starter. You know nothing about road safety and all you ever 'suggest' is to make it easier for cyclists to get away with breaking the rules of the road and generally being a hindrance for every other road user. None of your suggestions are 'new ideas' - they're all either current or failed trials from other parts of the world.

I also seem to remember you being opposed to amber before green (the UK traffic light sequence) which is known to make vehicular traffic flow more freely for unspecified reasons - basically, it would make it slightly easier to drive cars, which you are completely and utterly opposed to.

Calina

MYOB and cyclopath2001, knock it off now. Personalising the debate is in no one's long term interest either on this board or for transport in general.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

but believe me, I do understand how threatened you must feel when ideals you believe to be sacred in are challenged. New ideas can be quite threatnening.

One more smarmy comment like this to another user and you will be taking a holiday from here.

MYOB wrote: »

is to further your sole platform - that of the Cycling Facist -

One more abusive comment of that nature to any other user and you too will be taking a holiday from here.

_________________________________________

regards your friendly moderator.

monument

There's a lot of talk here about doing things one way or another. But what is needed is different levels. Here's my loose Saturday night thoughts on what could be done inside Irish towns and cities...

Just to add even with in the break downs listed there are elements that would or would not be suited dependent on location, street size, and on volumes of traffic, public transport and pedestrian etc...

Primary traffic corridors
Traffic has priority. (Well designed) separated cycling lanes should be provided unless a parallel cycling corridor for the route is also in place.

Secondly traffic corridors
Traffic has priority. Cycling lanes should be provided -- for secondly corridors parallel cycling street in most places would be overkill. Outside rush hours and in areas that have lower traffic, pedestrian crossings lights could switch to flashing orange (for the motorists), for use at such times a Belisha beacon(aka a "zebra crossing light") could also be placed on top of traffic lights. Raised junctions should be looked at.

Non-traffic corridor streets (without pedestrians priority)
Pritty much as now, but raised junctions and raised zebra crossings with Belisha beacons should be the norm. At least four way stop signs should be the junctions where this type of street intersect with the same type.

Cycling corridors
Motorists are allowed but cyclists have priority on carriageway. Use: Limited to streets parallel (not strictly) to traffic corridors, where there is no space for cycle lanes. Benefit: Safer for cyclists, calming effect on street, and separates bikes and buses where route is busy for both.

Pedestrians priority areas with lanes
Mixed priority - Pedestrians have priority in most areas, but should only cross and not walk in bike and traffic lanes. Only small, single traffic lanes would be used. Levelled streets, no footpaths. Speed limited very low. Examples of areas which it could be used in include: as directly below, but in areas where more structure is needed.

Pedestrians priority streets
Pedestrians have priority. Levelled streets, no footpaths. Motorists and cyclists have to make their way around pedestrians etc. Speed limited very low. Examples of areas which it could be used include parts of Temple Bar and area of "South of Dame Street". Depending on political will or direction this could be expanded to a lot of non-traffic corridors streets across the cities and towns.

Pedestrians streets
Exclusive to pedestrians. To be used only in areas that have / could have very heavy footfall.

murphaph wrote: »

...but in fact I think irish drivers are pretty good at giving way to pedestrians where required by law.

Really? Because from what I have seen a large bulk of Irish drivers are self obsessed once they get behind a wheel and the concept being a bit helpful to other drivers is beyond them, never mind giving way to pedestrians. I've witnessed and have heard more then a few drivers describing how when they were trying to pull out of a junction / house / parking space / bus lane etc that other drivers speed up in case they get on front of them.

And all too many times I've seen drivers doing the same or at least not making any attempt to slow down when pedestrians are crossing. As if the driver has no obligation to slow down, and to show the pedestrians that they are wrong to be crossing outside a crossing or when the man is red etc. The standards of driving in this country is dreadful... and, no, I'm not just saying that as a cyclist, I hear it from motorists all the time.

HonalD

Thanks Monument for the comment - some of it makes sense - even this late on a Saturday night...:)...But back to the original issue - yes, an all round red phase for traffic does impact on capacity but is necessary for the safe crossing of pedestrians...however, there are ways to design junctions to get around having to have them.

Staggering the crossings is one idea then you can cross some of the approaches whilst other traffic has a green light...another is putting pedestrian crossing faciltities away from junctions and sometimes on the intended desire line.

With regard to one comment that all traffic lights should be taken out.....well I won't be abusive but I think any sane person would have to disagree......:rolleyes:

aliveandkicking

HonalD wrote: »

all round red phase for traffic does impact on capacity but is necessary for the safe crossing of pedestrians

Why has it suddenly become necessary? Blind people have been crossng junctions for years without an all red phase and unless I am very much mistaken we didn't have many instances of them getting run over at these junctions.

How often do pedestrians actually wait for the "all clear" before actually crossing?

Usually they just wait for the last car in the queue to pass then cross, most junctions have long periods when they have NO traffic passing through of any kind.

cyclopath2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Usually they just wait for the last car in the queue to pass then cross, most junctions have long periods when they have NO traffic passing through of any kind.

But if the junction is controlled by a pedestrian crossing signal, pedestrians are obliged by law to wait for it to change to green in their favour, even if there is no traffic.

If there was no signal, they can cross as long as they've allowed allow a safe distance for cars to slow down and give way. (That said, it takes a brave pedestrian to assert their right of way in Dublin.)

The problem with staggered crossings (if I understand the term correctly) is that it considerably increases the distance person has to walk, something which can adds to the difficulties faced by the mobility impaired.

Calina

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

But if the junction is controlled by a pedestrian crossing signal, pedestrians are obliged by law to wait for it to change to green in their favour, even if there is no traffic.

Yes, and do you really believe that they do wait?

cyclopath2001

Calina wrote: »

Yes, and do you really believe that they do wait?

No they don't. But why should are they being obliged by law to wait?

Calina

Either traffic signals are observed or they are not. Making exceptions for one sector of road users leads to anarchy in the long term. I have a major issue with cars breaking red lights; but it's not because I'm a pedestrian, it's because the system breaks down if it is not adhered to in all cases.

monument

Calina wrote: »

Either traffic signals are observed or they are not. Making exceptions for one sector of road users leads to anarchy in the long term.

I don't think right turning on red cause "anarchy" in the US, or does it?

murphaph

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The function of traffic signals serves mostly to limit the right of way of pedestrians to cross and to give the most priority to vehicular traffic. This is due to the long delays between crossing phases, short crossing times and absurd impositions requiring people to wait/stop/cross up to three times the distance of the actual junction they wish to cross.

The german system gives more 'junction time' to both pedestrians (and cyclists) and motorised traffic. It shifts the onus to the vehicle driver to be wary of pedestrians and cyclists and works well. In germany such things work because BOTH sides play the same game-peds and cyclists know the rules and obey them also and indeed a cyclist (not sure about a ped) can and regularly do have points added to their vehicular licence for breaking laws while on the bike. All fair and square.

It would be possible to eliminate all signals and suchlike (as you seem to wish for) and give carte-blanche to peds and cyclists over motorised traffic but when the cost of yous weekly shopping skyrockets to cover the diesel burned by many extra trucks all stuck in traffic chaos-don't complain about it. We have passed through the industrial revolution and live (for better or worse) in a mechanised society. Your bike was at some stage in a truck and the componenents likely shipped from all over the world. You wouldn't have that bike if it weren't for the mechanised society we live in. We must learn to co-exist on the roads. Sometimes it is better to allow mechanised traffic to flow and make peds and cyclists wait and vice-versa.

monument

murphaph wrote: »

We have passed through the industrial revolution and live (for better or worse) in a mechanised society. Your bike was at some stage in a truck and the componenents likely shipped from all over the world.

Yeah, but you seam to be putting "mechanised society" down to the sole domain of trucks. There are other ways of looking at these things...

If there was the political will or direction trams could deliver them into cities (near or directly to large stores, and using electric vans for less direct points). On a national, level rail can be used.

murphaph wrote: »

You wouldn't have that bike if it weren't for the mechanised society we live in.

The invention of the bicycle pre-dates the industrial revolution.

Even without the industrial revolution we could have quite ok bikes which may not be too like our bikes here, but wouldn't be too far off a lot of the bicycles used in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. In any case we could have the exact same bicycles with a "mechanised society" or world that looks far different than the one we live in.

murphaph wrote: »

We must learn to co-exist on the roads.

I agree with you on that.

But at the moment our society has allowed too many motorists fall into the mind set that they have the absolute "right of way" on a carriage way just because a sign, line, or light tells them so (note: the Rules of the Road states a right of way is never absolute). There is also a large devoid of the duty of care that motorists are supposed to have.

The law and the Rules of the Road don't support the state of mind that most motorists have, but, on a system level, planning has given too many rights of way to motorists -- this doesn't only work for motorists vs others, but also motorists vs others. For example: As I mentioned before the use of stop signs in ever direction at at crossing which do not contain traffic corridors... Usage: county cross roads where both roads would have close to the same levels of traffic OR urban areas where the same would apply to junctions of low enough traffic. This would go a long way to adressing the right of way state of mind -- our system enforces it.

cyclopath2001

murphaph wrote: »

It would be possible to eliminate all signals and suchlike (as you seem to wish for)

Not all, just some. We both agree that traffic signals work imperfectly for motorists and cyclists and that pedestrians get the worst deal of all. I think there would be much to be gained by experimenting with alternative arrangements.

murphaph wrote: »

and give carte-blanche to peds and cyclists over motorised traffic

No, just equal rights would be nice.

You seem to think I'm arguing for the abolition of motor vehicles when in fact I'm arguing for fair play for all and the efficient use of scarce road space. Inefficient traffic signals are one problem, but by far the biggest cause of inefficiency & the greatest impediment to useful, economy-enhancing commercial traffic is the waste of space by private motor vehicles.

HonalD

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Why has it suddenly become necessary? Blind people have been crossng junctions for years without an all red phase and unless I am very much mistaken we didn't have many instances of them getting run over at these junctions.

I'm sorry but you are taking my post out of context. In the case of a signalised cross-roads that has pedestrian signals on it i.e. each arm has a red-amber-green man signal for pedestrians, it is and always has been necessary to stop all traffic streams for the safe crossing of pedestrians...assuming all turning movements are allowed. If you ban right turns or left turns then you can have pedestrians crossing with "traffic" but not in conflict with traffic.:)

HonalD

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The function of traffic signals serves mostly to limit the right of way of pedestrians to cross and to give the most priority to vehicular traffic.

This is totally untrue and without foundation. If you are going to say something provocative, then at least back it up with a reference please.

HonalD

Deleted User wrote: »

How often do pedestrians actually wait for the "all clear" before actually crossing?

Usually they just wait for the last car in the queue to pass then cross, most junctions have long periods when they have NO traffic passing through of any kind.

At stand alone pelican crossings it is best practice for the signals to turn red for traffic and green for pedestrians either within a certain timeframe or when a gap appears in traffic sufficient for an able-bodied person to jaywalk across the road. By using Microwave Vehicle Detectors (MVDs) on the top of the poles then the controller can identifiy when there is a gap in the traffic and shut it down to allow pedestrians to cross....but I did start by saying that it is "best practice"..................;)

Del2005

HonalD wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are taking my post out of context. In the case of a signalised cross-roads that has pedestrian signals on it i.e. each arm has a red-amber-green man signal for pedestrians, it is and always has been necessary to stop all traffic streams for the safe crossing of pedestrians...assuming all turning movements are allowed. If you ban right turns or left turns then you can have pedestrians crossing with "traffic" but not in conflict with traffic.:)

Most other countries allow turns when peds are crossing with traffic flow. The peds have priority and all turning vehicles wait for the ped to clear the junction, all it takes is education and enforcement. The peds aren't in conflict but rule the cars, ped on road no one moves. Even in the US, the home of the car, they can manage this. All it needs is the goverment to make the law and supply the Gardai with enough resources to enforce it.

Zoney

Del2005 wrote: »

All it needs is the goverment to make the law and supply the Gardai with enough resources to enforce it.

There are two show-stoppers right there

cyclopath2001

HonalD wrote: »

This is totally untrue and without foundation. If you are going to say something provocative, then at least back it up with a reference please.

I'm quite surprised you feel provoked, I thought that this was generally accpepted as being the case, but here are the details that you ask for:

1: When there are crossing signals, pedestrians are only permitted to cross when the signal is in their favour.
2: When there are crossing signals, pedestrians may not cross anywhere else within 5 metres.
2: When there are crossing signals, pedestrians may be obliged by law to wait and cross three times, covering three times the distance of the most direct route.
3: When there is no signal, pedestrians may cross at any time once they've allowed sufficient space for vehicles to safely slow down and give way.
4: When there is no signal, pedestrians have automatic right of way over traffic coming out of minor roads.
5: When there is no signal, pedestrians have automatic right of way over traffic turning across their path.
6: When a junction is controlled by signals, most of the time the priority is for vehicles.

That's of lot of restriction, don't you think?

You may try to argue whether or not crossing signals serve mainly to restrict the rights of pedestrians (that's a matter of opinion) but I think you must accept that what I said has foundation.

If you disagree, please say why.