Jaywalking crackdown

MJohnston

I'm not sure whether this belongs in roads or in general infrastructure, but regarding:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1002/1224324727714.html

Specifically the jaywalking enforcement. Having spend a fair amount of time recently in the US, I've noticed a big difference in attitude towards street crossing there compared to here. Now I know a lot of this is probably cultural/social and would require a few years of harsh enforcement to change, but I wanted to examine some possible technical reasons why people are less careful (in Dublin at least) about crossing the road:

- In the US, crossings that are at traffic lights usually do not require a button press to activate, they automatically trigger and display "Walk" or the equivalent symbol when crossing is safe. In Ireland, people usually have to have pressed the button before the green crossing light will appear, even at junctions where the pedestrian crossing phase is implicit - I think this conditions people to not necessarily "trust" that a red crossing light means that they can't cross.

- We generally have an amber phase for pedestrians that seems to last longer than the green phase for some strange reason - again I think this conditions pedestrians to not respect the red light quite as much. Why do we even need an amber phase?

- A lot of crossing junctions are "hidden" from the view of the traffic they are interacting with, I'm thinking here for example of the left turning traffic from Westmoreland Street onto Aston Quay and the crossing at the corner of this intersection. Pedestrians see the Burgh Quay traffic stop and assume it is safe to cross, but then cars turn from Westmoreland and have to wait for a huge crowd of people to get across the road.

- We have a few timers on pedestrian crossings (at Ha'penny Bridge northside there is one I believe) but not enough, I think more of these combined with changes to the above would condition people more to wait for the next crossing phase rather than risk it and run across traffic.

Like I say, a lot of the problems here are social - people don't seem to properly check crossing lights and walk out in front of traffic because the person in front of them legged it across the road, Dublin being full of tourists who don't really know the laws of the land, etc. What do people think of these technicalities though, do you think they make a difference? Would you change them? Any others?

dandanmur

I think you're right in saying that it is a social problem there. I was in Calgary, Alberta recently and there are no Jaywalking laws there, yet, even when there are no cars in sight and there is go walk signal, people will still wait.

AugustusMinimus

IMO. It's all just common sense.

Middle of the day with cars everywhere, use the crossing. Middle of the night with the street clearly empty, cross with caution.

There should be a crackdown on jaywalking but common sense must prevail.

Irish and Proud

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

IMO. It's all just common sense.

Middle of the day with cars everywhere, use the crossing. Middle of the night with the street clearly empty, cross with caution.

There should be a crackdown on jaywalking but common sense must prevail.

I jaywalk a lot myself - a crackdown on jaywalking would lose pedestrians too much time - I'd really hate it as I walk very fast and like to get from A to B quickly. Also, if I lose too much time while driving, I don't speed (well not at the wheel), but make up the time on foot instead. Driving at speed kills, but does jaywalking (within reason of course)?

On the street, the pedestrian should be king, especially in town centres - that's why a bypass should always be provided - as well as separate cycling infrastructure.

MJohnston

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Driving at speed kills, but does jaywalking (within reason of course)?

I've seen that same argument before, but its not right - you're more likely to kill yourself, or cause a traffic accident by making a vehicle swerve to avoid you and hit someone else etc.

Look, jaywalking isn't really the main problem I'd complain about - I do it all the time myself, but I know the crossings I do it at very well, I know the traffic light phases like the back of my hand and I only do it when I know the traffic won't appear out of nowhere.

However, what I'm talking about it is the kind of jaywalking that happens in the radius of O'Connell Bridge - people who don't check that lights are green or don't even look for traffic (I see this happen ALL the time) and just walk out because someone else did, people who cross at the very end of a phase and block traffic, people who leg it at totally the wrong time and cause traffic to break sharply. I'm thinking about ways that these people could be dis-incentivised from doing this.

Iwannahurl

Traffic culture, and "jaywalking" culture, varies from place to place.

In New York City, where the term "jaywalking" first became popular, it used to refer to country bumpkins, or "jays", who didn't know how to give way properly to big city traffic. In NYC these days, waiting for the Walk signal is the sign of someone from the sticks.

In the US the concept of "jaywalking" did not exist prior to 1920 or thereabouts, and enshrining it in law was largely the result of serious lobbying by the motor industry.

In Ireland we have a poor culture of compliance with traffic law generally, compared to, say, some North European countries. Copenhagen and Stockholm are two cities where I saw almost none of the muppetry that's completely normal for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians (and law enforcers) in this country.

However, the concept of "jaywalking" is potentially very value-laden. Policies are now changing, and are at last moving towards an understanding that active and sustainable modes of travel need to be prioritised. Car-focused engineer-think still dominates, though. How many engineers have written papers about how "vehicular interference" impedes the "saturation flow rate" of pedestrians trying to cross the street?

I would suggest that one cure for "jaywalking" in certain areas, such as O'Connell Bridge, is to greatly increase the pedestrian capacity of the link. These large city centre thoroughfares can carry vastly more pedestrian traffic per metre of road width, compared to cars.

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In Ireland we have a poor culture of compliance with traffic law generally, compared to, say, some North European countries. Copenhagen and Stockholm are two cities where I saw almost none of the muppetry that's completely normal for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians (and law enforcers) in this country.

I'm actually in Copenhagen now and there's still rather a lot of clueless pedestrians and cyclists around. A LOT of red light breaking (for both).

Its better than Dublin but nowhere close to "none" - you do get that in Germany in places.

L1011

If only to prove life imitating art, I was hit (at fairly low speed) by a cyclist while going between my hotel and the 7-11 there. I had a green man, he had a red light for the cycle lane. After apologising in Danish and then English he proceeded to break the sodding light again by going on.

All this at a busy junction with no pedestrian protection of any description and very poor pedestrian priority (but fantastic bike lanes).

Iwannahurl

Almost none.

That was my experience during a 2-week summer stay in the city centre.

I'd be interested to know how Copenhageners view the concept of "jaywalking" in their highly civilised city.

I saw very few cyclists breaking red lights, cycling on footpaths or otherwise giving other road users a hard time. They even managed to yield to bus passengers, where the cycle path was routed between the bus stop and the road. That said, it is known that cyclist-bus passenger collisions increased hugely after the use of that aspect of cyclepath design was extended.

As for pedestrians "jaywalking" on Copenhagen's cyclepaths, I saw very little of such behaviour either, though personally I had a bit of a learning curve in that regard, aided by cyclists' bells.

One way or another, there's a big difference between such cyclist-pedestrian interactions and cyclist-pedestrian-motorised vehicle interactions. I imagine that for people like the late Hans Monderman, there is no such thing as "jaywalking".

L1011

On the walk back from the restaurant I had another cyclist break a red light at a pedestrian crossing. Far more than 'almost none'.

And a VW Golf, for fairness sake.

Is there a chance that I'm just extremely attuned to bad cycling, due to having to drive vans in city centres constantly; whereas you're not?

Iwannahurl

No, I'm extremely attuned to all sorts of bad behaviour on the road, whether cyclists, pedestrians or motorists. I don't jaywalk or cycle like a muppet myself, though I'm frequently surrounded by people who do.

Maybe in Copenhagen summer cycling is a different experience. The city may be in holiday mode, perhaps.

Or maybe you're in one of those anarchist neighbourhoods...

http://cphpost.dk/commentary/editorial/editorial-where-traffic-laws-are-eye-beholder

http://universitypost.dk/article/new-fines-slapped-bike-riders-copenhagen

L1011

I'm right at the border between Vesterbro and Indre By, not quite Christiana by any means...

There's also an electric car charging bay outside the hotel that has been quite busy all day, but I've not seen any other electric cars anywhere else oddly.

galwaycyclist

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not sure whether this belongs in roads or in general infrastructure, but regarding:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1002/1224324727714.html

Specifically the jaywalking enforcement. Having spend a fair amount of time recently in the US, I've noticed a big difference in attitude towards street crossing there compared to here. Now I know a lot of this is probably cultural/social and would require a few years of harsh enforcement to change, but I wanted to examine some possible technical reasons why people are less careful (in Dublin at least) about crossing the road:

- In the US, crossings that are at traffic lights usually do not require a button press to activate, they automatically trigger and display "Walk" or the equivalent symbol when crossing is safe. In Ireland, people usually have to have pressed the button before the green crossing light will appear, even at junctions where the pedestrian crossing phase is implicit - I think this conditions people to not necessarily "trust" that a red crossing light means that they can't cross.

- We generally have an amber phase for pedestrians that seems to last longer than the green phase for some strange reason - again I think this conditions pedestrians to not respect the red light quite as much. Why do we even need an amber phase?

- A lot of crossing junctions are "hidden" from the view of the traffic they are interacting with, I'm thinking here for example of the left turning traffic from Westmoreland Street onto Aston Quay and the crossing at the corner of this intersection. Pedestrians see the Burgh Quay traffic stop and assume it is safe to cross, but then cars turn from Westmoreland and have to wait for a huge crowd of people to get across the road.

- We have a few timers on pedestrian crossings (at Ha'penny Bridge northside there is one I believe) but not enough, I think more of these combined with changes to the above would condition people more to wait for the next crossing phase rather than risk it and run across traffic.

Like I say, a lot of the problems here are social - people don't seem to properly check crossing lights and walk out in front of traffic because the person in front of them legged it across the road, Dublin being full of tourists who don't really know the laws of the land, etc. What do people think of these technicalities though, do you think they make a difference? Would you change them? Any others?

The essence of the problem is that Irish road engineers frequently appear to use pedestrian crossings for the primary benefit of motorised traffic rather than pedestrians. It explains in part the curious reliance on traffic light crossings at locations where other countries would use zebra crossings. There would appear to be an attitude among some Irish engineers that the "pedestrian must always be made to wait".

The net result is to debase the concept among the target users.

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The net result is to debase the concept among the target users.

Would it be fair to suggest that many pedestrians -- and cyclists -- ignore traffic lights, because many traffic lights ignore them?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Irish and Proud

Plowman wrote: »

I can understand why there ought to be a crackdown on jaywalking, although I'm not sure how. (A licensing and penalty points system for pedestrians, perhaps? (just kidding ))

As a pedestrian, I'm often guilty of jaywalking myself. As a driver, people dashing out in front of my car is annoying and potentially dangerous, especially if I have to apply the brakes quickly.

If I approach a busy town or village centre, I aim for 30 kph - in such locations, the pedestrian is king IMO - the main fault regarding excessive hazard lies with the lack of a bypass - pedestrians should be reasonable though - I generally don't compromise motorists or cyclists when on foot.

Regards.

AugustusMinimus

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The essence of the problem is that Irish road engineers frequently appear to use pedestrian crossings for the primary benefit of motorised traffic rather than pedestrians. It explains in part the curious reliance on traffic light crossings at locations where other countries would use zebra crossings. There would appear to be an attitude among some Irish engineers that the "pedestrian must always be made to wait".

The net result is to debase the concept among the target users.

Why should pedestrians have priority over motorists and cyclists ?

No one has priority where there are traffic lights.

murphaph

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

No one has priority where there are traffic lights.

Clearly wheeled traffic has priority at a pelican crossing as the pedestrian has to push a button and wait for their phase before they can cross (unless they happen upon the crossing as someone else has pushed and waited). Pelicans could just as easily be wired with loops in the road to make them only turn green for wheeled traffic when a car/bike approaches, which is how it is now for pedestrians.

Zebra crossings could replace many Pelican crossings and pedestrians wouldn't have to wait at all.

Carawaystick

Many villages and towns in Spain (in Catalunya, where I've driven most in particular)
have sensors at the boundary( where the town name is on a sign) which change a set of traffic lights red when you pass the boundary and then turn green or flashing amber in time for you to drive on if you obey the speed limit

Seasoft

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Would it be fair to suggest that many pedestrians -- and cyclists -- ignore traffic lights, because many traffic lights ignore them?

Absolutely! A point I've made before.
Example, a major tourist site is Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin. There are no pedestrain lights or zebra crossing across the top of the hill of Winetavern Street. Just a painted "Look Left" or "Look Right" on the road. The DCC is encouraging "jaywalking" and by people unfamiliar with Dublin motoriing ways.

As another poster said, engineers do not plan for pedestrians, just factor them in later.

Irish and Proud

Seasoft wrote: »

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Would it be fair to suggest that many pedestrians -- and cyclists -- ignore traffic lights, because many traffic lights ignore them?

Absolutely! A point I've made before.
Example, a major tourist site is Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin. There are no pedestrain lights or zebra crossing across the top of the hill of Winetavern Street. Just a painted "Look Left" or "Look Right" on the road. The DCC is encouraging "jaywalking" and by people unfamiliar with Dublin motoriing ways.

As another poster said, engineers do not plan for pedestrians, just factor them in later.

...and all the NTA is going to achieve is reinforcing that problem by the removal of left slips. Left turning traffic can frustrate me as it frequently prevents me from crossing the rest of the road - I'm thinking 'why is there no left slip?'. 30/60 deg' left slips with zebra crossings could surely be used - of course, that's if authorities aren't anti-pedestrian.

Iwannahurl

Seasoft wrote: »

As another poster said, engineers do not plan for pedestrians, just factor them in later.

If we're lucky.

Waiting 10+ years for traffic calming, pedestrian crossings and some footpath completions in my neck of the woods...

what_traffic

Carawaystick wrote: »

Many villages and towns in Spain (in Catalunya, where I've driven most in particular)
have sensors at the boundary( where the town name is on a sign) which change a set of traffic lights red when you pass the boundary and then turn green or flashing amber in time for you to drive on if you obey the speed limit

Thats a great idea.

AugustusMinimus

murphaph wrote: »

Clearly wheeled traffic has priority at a pelican crossing as the pedestrian has to push a button and wait for their phase before they can cross (unless they happen upon the crossing as someone else has pushed and waited). Pelicans could just as easily be wired with loops in the road to make them only turn green for wheeled traffic when a car/bike approaches, which is how it is now for pedestrians.

Zebra crossings could replace many Pelican crossings and pedestrians wouldn't have to wait at all.

That's not true at all. Most crossings give an automatic go for pedestrians to cross without ever pressing a button.

loyatemu

at many Dublin junctions there are only pedestrian lights on 2 or 3 of the 4 crossings, meaning a pedestrian wishing to (legally) cross in the direction with no lights has to go all the way around and wait on 3 sets of lights. This is fairly typical of the car-centric design of our traffic signals.

Similarly forcing cyclists to go around one-way systems that have been put in place to improve the flow of cars - there should be short-cuts and contra-flow lanes for cyclists.

TBH I actually don't agree there should be a crackdown on jaywalking (or cyclists breaking ped lights for that matter, provided they're not ploughing through crowds of people) - credit people with some common sense. The burden of enforcement on motorists is higher because they're potential to cause death and injury is much higher.

Its also been shown that enforcing strict segregation between modes does not (as common sense might dictate) lead to a safer environment and a shared space where everyone is forced to give way to the slower and/or more vulnerable may be a safer design

Iwannahurl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

That's not true at all. Most crossings give an automatic go for pedestrians to cross without ever pressing a button.

Is that true? Any specific examples? How do those lights detect pdestrians?

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is that true? Any specific examples? How do those lights detect pdestrians?

I went through one in Frankfield, Cork last night where the pedestrian light came on without anyone being at the junction.

Can you prove the hypothesis that they don't turn on without pressing the button ?

Iwannahurl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I went through one in Frankfield, Cork last night where the pedestrian light came on without anyone being at the junction.

Can you prove the hypothesis that they don't turn on without pressing the button ?

Ah yes, I know those "pedestrian priority" traffic signals. They're common enough.

As a motorist, I have had to wait at such junctions (sometimes in the wee small hours, with nobody else about) for what I call invisible pedestrians to cross. Ghosts getting the Green Man perhaps.

As a pedestrian, I find that I hit the button at such junctions and I wait, and I wait, sometimes for more than one cycle, depending on traffic. The pedestrian button is just a placebo, because in my experience many such lights are dumb signals set to go through their usual cycle regardless of what pedestrians (or perhaps even motorists) would prefer.

What I would call a pedestrian priority traffic signal is where traffic is halted and pedestrians get the green light soon after they push the button. But it's still the case that pedestrians have priority only after the light goes green for them.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As a pedestrian, I find that I hit the button at such junctions and I wait, and I wait, sometimes for more than one cycle, depending on traffic. The pedestrian button is just a placebo, because in my experience many such lights are dumb signals set to go through their usual cycle regardless of what pedestrians (or perhaps even motorists) would prefer.

On the contrary many of the lights with push buttons have timers to ensure that there is a balanced flow of pedestrian vs road traffic, usually on routes with high levels of road traffic. The downside of this is that the impatient jaywalk. Where there is space available there should be proper pedestrian footbridges provided - like those crossing the N4 between Lucan and the M50 junction. However they are only really possible in areas where there's a fair bit of space, which there isn't much of in the centre of most of the cities and and medium - big towns.

monument

In an Irish context it is generally legal to cross a road anywhere once a signaled crossing is not within 15 meters.

People on foot actually have very strong legal rights at non-signaled crossings or where there is no crossing -- this is just not backed by road design, enforcement, or decent driver/cyclist education.

So given the legal right of pedestrians, the question also must be: Why don't motorists stop and let them cross? Why are motorists so aggressive?

Borrowed suggestion: There should be safety ads on TV telling motorists how costly hitting a pedestrian can be.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is that true? Any specific examples? How do those lights detect pdestrians?

I went through one in Frankfield, Cork last night where the pedestrian light came on without anyone being at the junction.

Can you prove the hypothesis that they don't turn on without pressing the button ?

A hell of a load of ped lights in Dublin City centre only go green if somebody presses the button -- there's some cases where this is a good idea but not at these locations I'm thinking of with heavy footfall and where no cars are waiting at red lights anyway.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

On the contrary many of the lights with push buttons have timers to ensure that there is a balanced flow of pedestrian vs road traffic, usually on routes with high levels of road traffic. The downside of this is that the impatient jaywalk. Where there is space available there should be proper pedestrian footbridges provided - like those crossing the N4 between Lucan and the M50 junction. However they are only really possible in areas where there's a fair bit of space, which there isn't much of in the centre of most of the cities and and medium - big towns.

They're not the ones that AugustusMinimus was referring to.

It would be a strange pedestrian signal that set off one of those timers automatically, regardless of whether someone pushed the button or not.

Not many of those timed ped crossings in my particular neck of the woods. In fact very few pedestrian crossings of any type, despite a large young population. There is no balance between pedestrian movement and traffic flow. Cars are king, and the local authority has steadfastly ignored or even resisted all demands to level the playing pitch a wee bit. Still, one hopes for change...

L1011

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It would be a strange pedestrian signal that set off one of those timers automatically, regardless of whether someone pushed the button or not.

The majority of pedestrian crossings in Copenhagen are timed only, with no buttons to press at all. You would have noticed this, I imagine

Resultingly, they cycle constantly, whether there is anyone waiting or not.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

The majority of pedestrian crossings in Copenhagen are timed only, with no buttons to press at all. You would have noticed this, I imagine

Resultingly, they cycle constantly, whether there is anyone waiting or not.

Yep, never had a problem crossing, even with kids in tow.

I believe part of the reason their traffic signal system runs better than ours is that they have successfully reduced traffic volumes. By way of a small example, we stayed on the Norrebrogade, and IIRC part of that was closed to cars a few years ago.

Copenhagen could have gone the way of other cities and choked their streets with cars. Instead they pursued policies that have maintained their reputation as a cycling city. If most of those ubiquitous bikes were replaced with cars the pedestrian crossing experience would be quite different.

So yes, "cycling constantly" in more ways than one...

L1011

The S-tog is likely a bigger contributor to people being able to avoid using cars than cycling is. Extensive, rapid and cheap (by Danish standards anyway) trains to the suburbs in each and every direction with multiple city centre stations.

While there are obviously more cyclists than here, it is absolutely nowhere near Dutch levels.

Iwannahurl

MYOB wrote: »

The S-tog is likely a bigger contributor to people being able to avoid using cars than cycling is. Extensive, rapid and cheap (by Danish standards anyway) trains to the suburbs in each and every direction with multiple city centre stations.

While there are obviously more cyclists than here, it is absolutely nowhere near Dutch levels.

Cycling to work or education has a modal share of 36% in Copenhagen. That translates into, for instance, 145,000 people cycling <10km to work or education, versus 48,000 travelling by car and 42,000 by bus or train.

This compares favourably to the Dutch experience IMO.

By the way, that Danish cycle strategy also says that no city in the Western world has a modal share for cycling to work or education that is higher than 40%. Their target for 2015 is 50%.

Compare the Danish and Dutch situations to Ireland, where IIRC the 2006 census showed that, for example, something like 40,000 schoolchildren nationwide were being driven 1km or less to school. No wonder us pedestrians and cyclists are made to wait...

L1011

Are they counting the large number of people who do the vast majority of their journey in the bike carriage of the S-Tog as solely "cycling" in that? Because that is about the only thing that can explain the significantly lower number of bikes on the actual roads compared to any Dutch city I've been in.

Iwannahurl

No idea, tbh.

I am aware, however, of a certain amount of Dutch-Danish rivalry in this area...

JuliusCaesar

I was told most pedestrian crossings in Dublin have buttons that are actually functionless - the reason they are there is so that the impatient pedestrian can push them multiple times, under the erroneous impression that he or she will change the lights faster.

On a lot of crossings, the green man stays for only a very short period so that any slow people (the aged, for example) will have difficulty crossing in time.

They are also very badly synchonised with traffic lights, as I found when out with a small child. Trying to teach the child to cross only on the green man, I found myself standing there while all the traffic lights were red! On another junction, the pedestrian crossing was split in two: the first green man got you to a traffic island in the middle of the road, the second from the island to the other side of the road - BUT they weren't synchronised with each other, leading to a pile-up of pedestrians on the island. :rolleyes:

There's one particular junction (ironically at Kevin St Garda Station) where, if you are coming from Camden St and want to get to the Garda Station legally, you actually have to cross FIVE pedestrian crossings: Two to cross Kevin St near the college, one to cross New Bride St, and two more to cross over to the Garda Station. (Illegally, you just cross one road - there's no pedestrian crossing across it.)

I did raise this with the Council, but their answer was that the City Engineer had looked into it, but any other way of facilitating the pedestrian would impede the flow of traffic. :eek: And then they wonder why people jaywalk!

Iwannahurl

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I was told most pedestrian crossings in Dublin have buttons that are actually functionless - the reason they are there is so that the impatient pedestrian can push them multiple times, under the erroneous impression that he or she will change the lights faster.

On a lot of crossings, the green man stays for only a very short period so that any slow people (the aged, for example) will have difficulty crossing in time.

They are also very badly synchonised with traffic lights, as I found when out with a small child. Trying to teach the child to cross only on the green man, I found myself standing there while all the traffic lights were red! On another junction, the pedestrian crossing was split in two: the first green man got you to a traffic island in the middle of the road, the second from the island to the other side of the road - BUT they weren't synchronised with each other, leading to a pile-up of pedestrians on the island. :rolleyes:

There's one particular junction (ironically at Kevin St Garda Station) where, if you are coming from Camden St and want to get to the Garda Station legally, you actually have to cross FIVE pedestrian crossings: Two to cross Kevin St near the college, one to cross New Bride St, and two more to cross over to the Garda Station. (Illegally, you just cross one road - there's no pedestrian crossing across it.)

I did raise this with the Council, but their answer was that the City Engineer had looked into it, but any other way of facilitating the pedestrian would impede the flow of traffic. :eek: And then they wonder why people jaywalk!

At least that engineer was honest about their real priorities.

You'll notice the large amount of "guard-rail" (aka sheep pens) installed at your example location. Supposedly guard-rail is for pedestrian safety, but given the explicit priority put on keeping the traffic flowing, it is evident that its primary purpose is to deter pedestrians from taking the most direct and convenient route.

The Mayor of London and Transport for London are moving in the opposite direction, and at this stage all of the guard-rail in the TfL's catchment area has been reviewed and about a third of it has been removed.

Here's an example of those short-lived green men that I know of in Salthill, Galway. When crossing with kids the light is often flashing by the time we're half-way across, and this does not inspire confidence. The StreetView image also shows two "jay-walkers", a car that appears to be going through a red light, and another car parked on double-yellow lines right beside the pedestrian crossings. And that's just when the Google Maps camera car happened to be passing.

Further down the road there's this arrangement, right in the middle of Salthill 'village'. There's a roundabout with no crossing points, a raised median with no crossing points and a traffic lane that has been given over to parking (there used to be double-yellow lines but the City Council gave in and turned the section into a parking area). There are pelican crossings in the area, but require a bit of a detour. Guess which is the handiest route to the shops etc -- that's right, park the car alongside the median and dash across the road.

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

At least that engineer was honest about their real priorities.

You'll notice the large amount of "guard-rail" (aka sheep pens) installed at your example location. Supposedly guard-rail is for pedestrian safety, but given the explicit priority put on keeping the traffic flowing, it is evident that its primary purpose is to deter pedestrians from taking the most direct and convenient route.

The Mayor of London and Transport for London are moving in the opposite direction, and at this stage all of the guard-rail in the TfL's catchment area has been reviewed and about a third of it has been removed.

Here's an example of those short-lived green men that I know of in Salthill, Galway. When crossing with kids the light is often flashing by the time we're half-way across, and this does not inspire confidence. The StreetView image also shows two "jay-walkers", a car that appears to be going through a red light, and another car parked on double-yellow lines right beside the pedestrian crossings. And that's just when the Google Maps camera car happened to be passing.

Further down the road there's this arrangement, right in the middle of Salthill 'village'. There's a roundabout with no crossing points, a raised median with no crossing points and a traffic lane that has been given over to parking (there used to be double-yellow lines but the City Council gave in and turned the section into a parking area). There are pelican crossings in the area, but require a bit of a detour. Guess which is the handiest route to the shops etc -- that's right, park the car alongside the median and dash across the road.

Have to agree with you on the point that the green light for pedestrians is too short at a lot of junction. A lot of the frail and elderly find it difficult to actually make it across the road in time.

Anyways. Here's a little summary of what I think of the whole pedestrian access debate in Ireland.

1. Where footfall is low, pelican crossings should always be used. You can't really use pelican crossings in an area where football is high as it could cause traffic chaos.
2. In the case of 1, I would have as many roundabouts with pelican crossings on each arm as possible. This of course will only work where motorised traffic isn't very high. This soluation is good as car will generally only have to stop for pedestrians crossing and of course, pedestrians won't have to stop at all.
3. In the case of of higher footfall, lights are still the best solution. It would be interesting though if more intelligent systems can be used to balances pedestrian vs car times at these junctions.

Iwannahurl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Have to agree with you on the point that the green light for pedestrians is too short at a lot of junction. A lot of the frail and elderly find it difficult to actually make it across the road in time.

Anyways. Here's a little summary of what I think of the whole pedestrian access debate in Ireland.

1. Where footfall is low, pelican crossings should always be used. You can't really use pelican crossings in an area where footfall is high as it could cause traffic chaos.
2. In the case of 1, I would have as many roundabouts with pelican crossings on each arm as possible. This of course will only work where motorised traffic isn't very high. This soluation is good as car will generally only have to stop for pedestrians crossing and of course, pedestrians won't have to stop at all.
3. In the case of of higher footfall, lights are still the best solution. It would be interesting though if more intelligent systems can be used to balances pedestrian vs car times at these junctions.

I don't quite follow. Are you saying that pedestrian request lights (Pelican crossings) are better where there is low footfall, and standard (though possibly smart) signals are better for high footfall crossings?

On the issue of low versus high footfall, I would suggest that it needs to be asked why footfall is low on a given street. Is it because it's not a pedestrian route, or do pedestrians avoid it because it's dangerous and/or inconvenient?

Personally I don't see why more zebra crossings aren't used, including on certain roundabouts. The fact that they aren't is an indication that the free flow of cars is the priority.

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I don't quite follow. Are you saying that pedestrian request lights (Pelican crossings) are better where there is low footfall, and standard (though possibly smart) signals are better for high footfall crossings?

On the issue of low versus high footfall, I would suggest that it needs to be asked why footfall is low on a given street. Is it because it's not a pedestrian route, or do pedestrians avoid it because it's dangerous and/or inconvenient?

Personally I don't see why more zebra crossings aren't used, including on certain roundabouts. The fact that they aren't is an indication that the free flow of cars is the priority.

Sorry. Meant to say that zebra crossings should be used in all situations where footfall is low. No justifications for lights at these sort of crossings.

Areas with higher footfall might require intelligent signalised crossings for the simple reason that a constant flow of people crossing on a zebra crossing would block all traffic from driving through it. WOuld be traffic chaos.

Iwannahurl

Perhaps every individual situation needs it own solution.

One possibility is the Shared Space concept (favoured by Hans Monderman and still being developed by Hamilton-Baillie in the UK and elsewhere).

I am intrigued by the idea, but I have to admit that I'm doubtful it could work in Ireland. I'd like to see such a development here, though, and I'd love to be proved wrong.

Spot the "jaywalkers" in these videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35yJShA_go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw-6OSCnHA0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn2NfUH0G-Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf-O5o4aqcs

JuliusCaesar

Hmmm. Thanks for the videos. I really like the allowing of diagonal pedestrian crossings: I think this is what the 4 greenman crossings at a junction allows, but unofficially here.

I'm not sure if the last one (getting rid of any kind of traffic signal or sign) would work in the anarchic traffic of Ireland (anarchic compared to Germany).

I know if I ever come to a broken traffic light in a car here in Dublin, and need to go straight on or turn right, it's really nerve-wracking.

jack presley

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I was told most pedestrian crossings in Dublin have buttons that are actually functionless - the reason they are there is so that the impatient pedestrian can push them multiple times, under the erroneous impression that he or she will change the lights faster.

On a lot of crossings, the green man stays for only a very short period so that any slow people (the aged, for example) will have difficulty crossing in time.

They are also very badly synchonised with traffic lights, as I found when out with a small child. Trying to teach the child to cross only on the green man, I found myself standing there while all the traffic lights were red! On another junction, the pedestrian crossing was split in two: the first green man got you to a traffic island in the middle of the road, the second from the island to the other side of the road - BUT they weren't synchronised with each other, leading to a pile-up of pedestrians on the island. :rolleyes:

There's one particular junction (ironically at Kevin St Garda Station) where, if you are coming from Camden St and want to get to the Garda Station legally, you actually have to cross FIVE pedestrian crossings: Two to cross Kevin St near the college, one to cross New Bride St, and two more to cross over to the Garda Station. (Illegally, you just cross one road - there's no pedestrian crossing across it.)

I did raise this with the Council, but their answer was that the City Engineer had looked into it, but any other way of facilitating the pedestrian would impede the flow of traffic. :eek: And then they wonder why people jaywalk!

At the junction of St. Stephen's Green and Dawson Street, the pedestrian lights are red for about 90 seconds (seems a lot longer when you're standing there) then go green for about 5-6 seconds so i agree with you 100%

AugustusMinimus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perhaps every individual situation needs it own solution.

One possibility is the Shared Space concept (favoured by Hans Monderman and still being developed by Hamilton-Baillie in the UK and elsewhere).

I am intrigued by the idea, but I have to admit that I'm doubtful it could work in Ireland. I'd like to see such a development here, though, and I'd love to be proved wrong.

Spot the "jaywalkers" in these videos.

Oxford Circus seems to be a very interesting solution for that junction.

SeanW

I like the diagonal crossing idea, I've done it many times at 4 way green man crossings in Dublin and Cork.

Regarding the road in Bern, I doubt that this is a main road - as you can clearly see its carrying only very small amounts of traffic at very low speeds, and even at that it's stop-and-go because pedestrians have ABSOLUTE priority throughout. The Irish equivalent would be to have zebra stripes covering the entire road.

Even you can surely see that this would be impractical for all but the least trafficed laneways.

As to the implementation in Germany, it doesn't seem all that safe to me, when I'm out walking, I like to have my raised footpath, zebra crossings and all the rest.

In fact, when I walk on really good footpaths like these:
http://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.73678,-7.779374&spn=0.002383,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.73678,-7.779374&panoid=tpPYS_a76-a1JvNMSDQUuA&cbp=12,179.12,,0,9.46

or

http://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.361399,-6.591196&spn=0.009617,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.362794,-6.591224&panoid=0fHaQJda2l40nZsNSXQi9g&cbp=12,348.19,,0,7.41

I don't really care what speed the cars are going at, within reason.

But despite their faults, these schemes do actually benefit someone, unlike some of that other nonsense you've been promoting over the years like the Essex design of housing estates, which serve no purpose at all whatsoever except to irritate the residents with some bizarre anti-car statement.

Iwannahurl

SeanW wrote: »

Regarding the road in Bern, I doubt that this is a main road - as you can clearly see its carrying only very small amounts of traffic at very low speeds, and even at that it's stop-and-go because pedestrians have ABSOLUTE priority throughout. The Irish equivalent would be to have zebra stripes covering the entire road.

Even you can surely see that this would be impractical for all but the least trafficed laneways.

Some European countries may not be directly comparable to Ireland, for reasons to do with legislation, culture and other factors.

Pedestrians may not have absolute priority, although it's possible they have much better legal protection than we do (as is the case with cyclists in the Netherlands, for example).

Famously, Hans Monderman claimed not to be bothered about such details:

"Who has the right of way?" he asked rhetorically. "I don't care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains."

Another important consideration is that reduction in traffic and an improved pedestrian environment are synergistic. The Irish way is to justify lack of pedestrian priority because of the volume of car traffic, which misses the point that pedestrian numbers might well be greater if there were fewer (and slower) cars.

SeanW wrote: »

In fact, when I walk on really good footpaths like these:
http://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.73678,-7.779374&spn=0.002383,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.73678,-7.779374&panoid=tpPYS_a76-a1JvNMSDQUuA&cbp=12,179.12,,0,9.46

Since the thread is about alleged "jaywalking" it's worth recalling that this fabricated concept generally refers to crossing the road. Walking along a particular stretch of footpath doesn't usually qualify.

However, your StreetView link above does prompt a little musing about what the walking environment can be like in a culture where the car is king and where "planning" decisions are made accordingly.

Let's say you work in Abbott just off the N4 near Longford, and just a stone's throw from the spot you link to above.

Let's also say, for the sake of illustration and argument, that you rent or own a house in an estate called The Brickfield.

As the crow flies The Brickfield is little more than 1km from Abbott, which would be a very easy walk or cycle if Irish "planning" was set up to properly accommodate such quaint (or should that be new-fangled?) notions. However, because The Brickfield is just one of several similar cul-de-sac estates plonked down in the middle of some fields with only a single access route provided (unless of course there's some handy shortcut through the fields that only the locals know about) those who wish to walk or cycle have to follow a roundabout route -- literally, there being three such junctions to negotiate on the journey illustrated -- that's approximately three times as long.*

Of course 3.5 km or thereabouts is only about a 15-minute cycle (or a 45-minute walk, for the dedicated) but I'm prepared to bet that most Abbott employees, if they lived in The Brickfield or neighbouring estates, would choose to drive.

The fundamental point I'm trying to make with this hypothetical exercise is: environments that are not walkable promote car-dependence, and roads that are not easily 'crossable' promote "jaywalking" (as well as car-dependence).

In my locality there are several cul-de-sac estates where the only authorised access is via busy roads where speeding is endemic and there is a total lack of traffic calming or pedestrian-priority crossings. The "jaywalking" I see every morning consists of schoolchildren climbing over a 2.5 metre high wall in order to shave 30 minutes of their walk to secondary school, ie to avoid an hour extra walking every day. Meanwhile some of my neighbours are driving their children 800 metres to the local primary school, and there's even a few who drive 300 metres to a creche (the last 20 metres or so up on the footpath!).

SeanW wrote: »

But despite their faults, these schemes do actually benefit someone, unlike some of that other nonsense you've been promoting over the years like the Essex design of housing estates, which serve no purpose at all whatsoever except to irritate the residents with some bizarre anti-car statement.

For those who don't get the Essex Design reference, it has to do with Fairgreen in Portlaoise, where "parking courts" are provided a few metres from people's houses, but where an epidemic of idiopathic lower limb atrophy seems to have occurred to the extent that many people are apparently no longer able to walk that distance from their designated parking space to their front door.

Then again, it may not be a lower limb problem at all. It seems car-dependence narrows our minds as well as widening our waists.








*EDIT: This looks like a better route, though a bit longer and still indirect, which is the (hypothetical) point.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Pedestrians may not have absolute priority, although it's possible they have much better legal protection than we do (as is the case with cyclists in the Netherlands, for example).

Maybe you should review your own video - pedestrians can waltz out onto the road wherever and whenver they feel like, without even looking, and are yielded to by traffic which is moving extraordinarily slowly and in a stop-and-start fashion.

Even you should be able to see that this is not very efficient.

Famously, Hans Monderman claimed not to be bothered about such details:

"Who has the right of way?" he asked rhetorically. "I don't care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains."

Well, if Hans Monderman doesn't care, that changes everything :pac:

Since the thread is about alleged "jaywalking" it's worth recalling that this fabricated concept generally refers to crossing the road.

There's nothing fabircated about it - a pedestrian is bound to comply with the Rules of the Road just like any other road user.

Walking along a particular stretch of footpath doesn't usually qualify.

I used those google street view pics as a basis for my disapproval for the idea of flattening footpaths for the "Shared Space" approach - as a pedestrian I find the idea highly questionable.

Re: your points about planning, to some extent I agree because every time I drive past the Gleann Riada (sp?) estate I'm reminded of just how little actual "planning" was done, here in Longford and most likely elsewhere.

For those who don't get the Essex Design reference, it has to do with Fairgreen in Portlaoise, where "parking courts" are provided a few metres from people's houses, but where an epidemic of idiopathic lower limb atrophy seems to have occurred to the extent that many people are apparently no longer able to walk that distance from their designated parking space to their front door.

My bringing up the Essex design thing was a contextual warning to anyone who might take you seriously not realising that you have a certain continent sized chip on your shoulder about motorists.

The Essex design, of that estate and any other, serves no purpose except to make some bizarre anti-car statement.

Reading your latest piece about it brings to mind one question - why should someone HAVE to park their cars perhaps 2 properties over from where they live? What's wrong with people having driveways, on-street parking etc? Your take on the whole thing casts you in the light of a motorist basher blided by some hardline ideology.

For context, I first became aware of IWHs motorist bashing position when he started a thread stating that town bypasses were no good unless accompanied by car-hostile measures in the towns in question, which he then followed in thread by some bizarre rant about how Irish motorists were unique among the world for being law-breaking scum, and pointed to this particular housing estate in Portlaoise where those horrible evil residents (you know, the people who have had to live with the consequences of this insanity) dared to park their cars by their houses instead of using this ridiculous "parking court" setup.

AugustusMinimus

That shared space conecept looks absolutely crazy btw and looks like it is incredibly inefficient for traffic flow.

Looks like multiple accidents just waiting to happen. That and a potential haven for fraudulent insurance claims.

Helix

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm thinking about ways that these people could be dis-incentivised from doing this.

make them 100% responsible for any accidents caused, any damage to vehicles caused, any hospital bills run up etc by their jaywalking. basically if you get hit by a car or cause an accident crossing anywhere but the traffic lights, you pay the bill