DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

Paradoxically, the fewer signs we use, the safer we are (this is true, there's research to back me up, and Europeans don't use nearly as many signs as we do, they barely use speed limits and stop signs). Traffic lights are fine at busy intersections (and they're more or less in a heads-up display level anyway where they don't get distracting. The more information people are intended to process forcibly, the less decision making they are able to make in critical and normal driving situations. This is not a good idea because we want people to have to make decisions while driving. It keeps them on their toes and alert.

So no, this is a dumb idea.

It's not a dumb idea because pedestrians should be alerted at very dangerous intersections. Not all of them are the same. Statistics can prove this, because there are some intersections where accidents tend to happen more often.

But the more signage is involved the more dangerous intersections tend to become. Signs are yet another object your mind has to process and after a while, most people just sort of filter them out as useless information. Because most of the time they are in fact, useless information.

You have to do other things than posting a sign to avert the dangers: try to re-route the flow of traffic into heavier (but not too heavy) patterns, redesign the road itself, put up a traffic light to control traffic flow (ideally a smart light to minimize the inconveniences at off-peak hours, put up better lighting around the intersection so pedestrians are more visible, etc.

I'm not talking about putting signs for the drivers to look at, but for the pedestrians to know before they are crossing the street.

If pedestrians are too stupid to notice that traffic is moving fast and heavy in front of them, I don't see that a warning is going to help them.

I guess you wouldn't understand since you don't live in New York.

That seems to be your explanation for everything. Let me know when it becomes an empirical proof with data that I should listen to.

To answer your question;

NO!

I would actually like to see dumb deadly drivers labeled instead.

Just my not-so-humble opinion.

We all know certain intersections which are more dangerous than others, don't we? Why shouldn't there be a reason for us to put a little sign or something before crossing about how dangerous it is?

Because the evidence is that putting up a sign often makes it even more dangerous.

Yes, that's true, when it comes to drivers, but with pedestrians, if you position it in the right way, it's not a distraction at all.

So you would rather see a loss of human life?

Of course not. There is no cure for human stupidity. And my thinking is- if someone is dumb enough to walk out in the middle of heavy traffic, well, no one but himself can be held accountable.

There is some evidence that signs are costing lives.

I think the question would be whether you would rather see a loss of human life.

To draw some people a picture here since they do not understand what it is that I said.

Intersections do not cause "accidents" per se, people driving stupidly cause traffic collisions, therefore I believe that we Americans should take a lesson from our Japanese friends and label those drivers who are most likely to cause traffic collisions and not the intersections.

And contrary to popular belief it really isn't old farts like me or even teenagers – Its just stupid drivers driving stupidly!

A little hint here, if you label an intersection as "Dangerous" then the lawyer ambulance chasers will divert their attention of targeting the driver who caused the TC to the city for not "Correcting" the intersection when in fact it should be the driver that drove stupidly in the first place that should be held accountable.

Get my drift?

That is not a solution. Even though it says to walk/not walk, cars are still waiting for pedestrians to cross to make a turn. Crossing a side-street and crossing a boulevard are completely different.

That is in fact a solution. Personally I'd rather they got rid of the walk-don't walk signs as well. I think that would be safer for pedestrians. At least it would be if they were not tied to traffic lights more generally.

It would also be much safer if every light made it possible for cars to make turns before the green light. You know, when you get the green arrow. It gets rid of most of the cars waiting for this type of stuff.

You don't need a green arrow around here.

What hood you reppin'?

Most of the country as my understanding goes can turn at intersections without an arrow. And an arrow is just another "sign" which we shouldn't need in order to make decisions.

If pedestrians are ignoring the fact that they are leaving the sidewalk and entering a busy street and the fact that we already often use “don’t walk/walk” signs, what’s the evidence that an addition sign indicating that they might be in danger should they cross a street going to actually DO? The real life answer is almost nothing. And what it will cost? The answer is way too much, particularly in relation to these “benefits”.

The cheaper answer is to design cars that are less likely to kill pedestrians if they are struck, looking at empirical methods of reducing the number of total accidents of any kind (not just car to foot accidents), to design methods of regulating the flow of foot traffic at a busy intersection, to design cities and suburbs with enough sidewalk space, and so on. These have the added advantage of increasing property values, city revenues, general safety, and don’t simply rely on some ridiculous and expensive paternalistic inability to trust people to make decisions for their own safety and well-being.

I'm talking about the green arrows that let cars turn before oncoming traffic.

Then everyone walking in Manhattan and other popular cities are stupid. Every time I walk to school, you have to walk during heavy traffic. Cabs make turns all the time and have to wait for people to cross.

You are talking about the signs that distract drivers while driving. Signs positioned for pedestrians would alert them before walking across the street about how dangerous the road is they are crossing.

In other countries like Japan and China, traffic collisions are low because they all take bikes and stuff.

You obviously haven't been to Japan or China recently.

Yes I know what you're talking about. We have some of them. But you still shouldn't need a sign to make that decision as a driver. Unless you're an idiot.

Or apparently an American since almost nobody else in the world uses signage for everything on roads that are often more congested than ours.

Pedestrians don't need signs to make that determination. You, quite simply, have a very low opinion of people. Even lower than the opinion I have of them.

I am not sure whether to be impressed or depressed by this.

And there is no evidence that the signs for pedestrians (like the walk/don't walk signs) are helping save lives either. I suspect they are just as costly as traffic signs are.

Sun Tzu, I haven't been back to Japan since 1978. Back then the Japanese driver was held accountable no matter who caused the TC as all drivers were considered professional drivers. I do not know how it is today, but knowing the Japanese as I do I suspect not much has changed since then.

Also, I have noticed that China (Mainland China that is) now has the highest TC fatality rates in the world. This is due to the sudden "explosive" growth in automobiles and highways resulting in the worlds fastest growing number of new drivers. One statistic sticks out in my brain – in the year 2000 over ninety percent of the Chinese populations primary mode of transportation was the bicycle compared to when they hosted the Olympics that number had been reduced to just under thirty percent. That country is jumping on the modernization bandwagon before the horse gets traded in for a steam engine and the horse is collapsing under the weight!

I don't think the point was that they are less safe or less responsible as drivers at all.

Merely that they aren't riding bicycles around on highways or some such. Our ethno-centric friend here seems to think that they are still in the early 20th century for personal transportation. Those are both very modern societies. North Korea might have a high rate of bikes and stuff, but Japan or China…. not so much.

Traffic is a part of life. But if someone is silly enough to actually walk out there when they know cars are coming (ie- when the light is green, rather than red), then no amount of signage is going to cure that.