human909 wrote:Aushiker wrote:I am commenting in respect to the
WA Road Code, but in this context your statement appears to be not correct
Of course context is relevent but we don't need to get too pedantic now do we.
Besides should a collision at a controlled intersection occur the WA code means the same thing. For a collision to occur the driver necessarily did not give way to a pedestrian crossing the intersection.
Either way there is no way around the fact that vehicles turning at intersections need to give way to pedestrians.
But is there a way around the requirement for turning vehicles to
wait for pedestrains crossing in front of them, giving way mean don't get in the way. If no pedestrian has to take any evasive action to avoid the motorist (which should necessarily be the case on a red ped signal), then they motorist must neccesarliy obey this priority rule. If such a collision should occur on a red ped signal the pedestrian must necessarily have ignored the light.
Livetoride wrote:I understand what you said, but its weird, you break the law by crossing on a red signal, but if you do cross, motorists have to give way (understanding that its there to protect the safety of the ped) shouldn't it be a case of, you the motorist has right of way....not the law breaking ped who decided in all their wisdom to break the law and cross on a red signal and in doing so the motorist has to give way to them... Think this law needs to be changed...
So you might ingore the pedestrian light and expect the motorist not to get in your way, that's filthy rich! If a motorist had to stop or slow down to avido you, maybe you should pay a heavier fine that one otherwise would for crossing on a red man.
human909 wrote:No this law absolutely should not be changed and cannot be rationally changed in the way you imply. Vehicles need to base their decision on the signals that are directed towards THEM not on signals that are not directed towards them.
I don't quite get it, if pedestrians do not need to take any evasive action to avoid the turing vehicle and have their own ped signal, why can vehciles not rationally base their deicisons on the pedestrian light, does basing it only on the main traffic light provide certainly for unfamiliar road users and
visually impaired drivers?
Allowing the pedestrians to cross on a red ped signal provided the main traffic light is green, or dispensing with the pedestrian light altogether would also remove the need to give way to pedestrians whenever they are breaking the law by crossing, while allowing humans to act in their natural behaviour.
Biffidus wrote:I'd still honk them. The pedestrian lights go red earlier to allow some cars through in that cycle of lights and red-manning a busy intersection is rude to all the cars that are waiting to turn.
Fair enough I suppose.
The example I was talking about was with little traffic and a car turning left into a quiet suburban street. There is no way any sane pedestrian would wait an entire (long) light cycle in order to cross this tiny suburban street.
This would hardly be an issue if our pedestrian lights went automatically with the light cycle.[/quote]
Here's a thought: Currently, each light controlled crosswalk has a button on each side to insert a green phase, what if this button did the opposite, preventing, in the presence of a pedestrian, the pedestrian light automatically turning green with the traffic light.