Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Flashing amber pedestrian lights

  • 25-01-2012 12:14pm
    #1
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭


    There is a street near me where two school kids have been killed recently in two seperate accidents, both of which took place at a traffic lights.

    I dont know the details of the incidents so I cant say exactly what took place.

    But I did notice that at both lights, there is a system whereby light goes Red for traffic, and then goes green for pedestrian. Then it goes amber for traffic and flashing green for pedestrian.

    It is the latter part I have difficulty with.

    As a driver, pedestrian and cyclist, it is pretty clear to me that drivers do not stop for Orange lights. Full stop. They dont.

    That is not say that people dont understand the rules of the road. its simply to say that they dont obey them.

    Why then would a pedestrian take a chance on walking out on a flashing green man, if the traffic light is orange.....which is not a signal that makes Irish drivers stop.

    But nevertheless the Green pedestrian light is telling them it is safe to walk, when it is patently not.

    Does anyone else see a major hazard in this. It creates a potentially dangerous situation in my view.


Comments

  • #2
    dellWlan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 294 ✭✭dellWlan


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    There is a street near me where two school kids have been killed recently in two seperate accidents, both of which took place at a traffic lights.

    I dont know the details of the incidents so I cant say exactly what took place.

    But I did notice that at both lights, there is a system whereby light goes Red for traffic, and then goes green for pedestrian. Then it goes amber for traffic and flashing green for pedestrian.

    It is the latter part I have difficulty with.

    As a driver, pedestrian and cyclist, it is pretty clear to me that drivers do not stop for Orange lights. Full stop. They dont.

    That is not say that people dont understand the rules of the road. its simply to say that they dont obey them.

    Why then would a pedestrian take a chance on walking out on a flashing green man, if the traffic light is orange.....which is not a signal that makes Irish drivers stop.

    But nevertheless the Green pedestrian light is telling them it is safe to walk, when it is patently not.

    Does anyone else see a major hazard in this. It creates a potentially dangerous situation in my view.

    After red for traffic it should go flashing amber. Flashing amber means go if it's safe to go. Just as solid amber means stop if it's safe to stop. At a pedestrian lights if there were pedestrians it's safe to assume it's not safe to go on a flashing amber.
    What I've noticed is pedestrian lights where there's no junction usually get completely ignored by motorists. Not even stopping on red.


  • #3
    spank_inferno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    Yep your correct, at flashing amber, the pedestrian will still have right of way so the motorist holds fast till its a green.... and then consider moving.

    unless its all definetely clear.... then move on.

    Shame about the incidents at the OPs location though.


  • #4
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Tombo2000 wrote: »

    Why then would a pedestrian take a chance on walking out on a flashing green man, if the traffic light is orange.....which is not a signal that makes Irish drivers stop.

    But nevertheless the Green pedestrian light is telling them it is safe to walk, when it is patently not.

    A flashing green man means that you are not allowed to start crossing the road, but you have time to finish crossing if you are on the road. Surely this is common knowledge?


  • #5
    Kensington
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,683 ✭✭✭Kensington


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    A flashing green man means that you are not allowed to start crossing the road, but you have time to finish crossing if you are on the road. Surely this is common knowledge?
    I always thought so too, at least that's what they always taught me in school all those years back!

    Green = Walk (if safe to do so)
    Green flashing = Do not start to cross

    And for the drivers point of view, flashing amber means proceed only if there is no-one crossing at the time and it is safe to do so ("proceed with caution").


  • #6
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,762 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    A flashing green man means that you are not allowed to start crossing the road, but you have time to finish crossing if you are on the road. Surely this is common knowledge?

    I think the issue is more with the idea of there being 'pedestrian green' at the same time as 'driver amber'. Regardless of the intricacies of what flashing means. unfortunately drivers see any orange as Go, and pedestrians see any green as Go.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    I think the issue is more with the idea of there being 'pedestrian green' at the same time as 'driver amber'. Regardless of the intricacies of what flashing means. unfortunately drivers see any orange as Go, and pedestrians see any green as Go.


    That is my point also.

    Its not what the actual rule is.

    Its how people interpret the rule.

    An amber light is very often ignored by drivers. If anything its a signal to drive faster so you get through ahead of the red.

    A green man flashing or otherwise, is a signal for many pedestrians to walk across.


  • #8
    dellWlan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 294 ✭✭dellWlan


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    I think the issue is more with the idea of there being 'pedestrian green' at the same time as 'driver amber'. Regardless of the intricacies of what flashing means. unfortunately drivers see any orange as Go, and pedestrians see any green as Go.


    That is my point also.

    Its not what the actual rule is.

    Its how people interpret the rule.

    An amber light is very often ignored by drivers. If anything its a signal to drive faster so you get through ahead of the red.

    A green man flashing or otherwise, is a signal for many pedestrians to walk across.


    I think there are rules relating to lit and unlit pedestrian crossings. Not sure exactly what the rules are about who goes way to whom but I reckon at all pedestrian crossings drivers should give way to pedestrians. it's just common decency for one and the lit or unlit thing wouldn't come into then.

    I live in Clare and they'd regularly attempt to drive over you at pedestrian crossings regardless. They've no idea how to drive down here.


  • #9
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    putting it another way.....

    there is no need to have a flashing amber.

    if it is showing green for pedestrian (flashing or otherwise) then it should show red for a car.

    As red is the only thing that cars (sometimes) stop for.


  • #10
    Del2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,164 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    TBH it doesn't mater if the pedestrian light is showing Amber, Flashing Amber or Green.

    Green means proceed if the way is clear, not GOOOOO like some people think, so the motorists shouldn't move till the pedestrian has cleared the road ahead of them. But then you have kids running across the road on Red pedestrian lights into traffic as the motorist is ALWAYS wrong, not carrying that a car will do them more harm then they can possibly do to a car.

    It's all down to ZERO enforcement of any of our traffic/road laws bar exceeding the posted speed limit and DUI. Just look at the parking around any school.

    If people don't know someone who's been done and never see a copper why would they bother obeying the law? There's so little risk of being caught it's a joke, if it wasn't so serious.


  • #11
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    I'll put it another way....

    there is no need for flashing amber.

    if it showing green for a pedestrian then it should show red for motorists, as red is the only thing that motorists stop for (and not even always at that).

    its not good enough to assume that 9 year olds are au fait with the Rules of the Road, and that they will understand the distinction between Green Pedestrian and Flashing Green Pedestrian.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    Del2005 wrote: »
    Green means proceed if the way is clear, not GOOOOO like some people think, so the motorists shouldn't move till the pedestrian has cleared the road ahead of them.

    There's so little risk of being caught it's a joke, if it wasn't so serious.


    Do you mean for the Pedestrian?

    So a green Pedestrian light means only go if the way is clear?

    Thats a new one on me.

    I'm not blaming the motorist or the pedestrian per se here, I'm saying the amber flashing light creates a confusing and unclear situation....


  • #13
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    Do you mean for the Pedestrian?

    So a green Pedestrian light means only go if the way is clear?

    Thats a new one on me.

    I'm not blaming the motorist or the pedestrian per se here, I'm saying the amber flashing light creates a confusing and unclear situation....

    Having a green light doesn't absolve you from being aware of the situation around you. You shouldn't cross the road without looking if you have a green light. And that goes double for cars - don't go through a traffic light unawares, no matter what the colour.


  • #14
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The problem is that pedestrians are unaware (or ignore the fact) that a flashing green or an amber pedestrian light mean "do not cross" and instead try to race across the road without looking.

    As far as I can tell, drivers are well capable of telling the difference between an amber at a pedestrian crossing and an amber at a normal junction.

    The flashing amber/flashing green combination provides for better traffic flow as it allows drivers to go provided that the pedestrian crossing is clear rather than having to wait twice that time for the ped light to go red.


  • #15
    Eiretrains
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 273 ✭✭Eiretrains


    seamus wrote: »
    As far as I can tell, drivers are well capable of telling the difference between an amber at a pedestrian crossing and an amber at a normal junction.

    The flashing amber/flashing green combination provides for better traffic flow as it allows drivers to go provided that the pedestrian crossing is clear rather than having to wait twice that time for the ped light to go red.

    These were my thoughts also. I assume most drivers know when seeing a flashing amber that they cannot proceed unless the crossing is totally clear. These type of crossings have been around since the 1960s, but they are much more common in the UK.

    Maybe off topic, but regarding the traffic flows; I noticed during the boom years several of the old crossings were replaced with standard type crossings at junctions, as if it was too inconvenient to install the original sequence, and on main roads it often results in unnecessary prolonged wait, so much so that I have seen impatient motorists simply break the red lights when no pedestrians are around. If the original sequence was in place perhaps things might be safer for both parties.


  • #16
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    seamus wrote: »
    The problem is that pedestrians are unaware (or ignore the fact) that a flashing green or an amber pedestrian light mean "do not cross" and instead try to race across the road without looking.
    Since when? I can't find any reference to this in the rules of the road. On a Pelican crossing a flashing ember gives priority to pedestrians.


  • #17
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    hmmm wrote: »
    Since when? I can't find any reference to this in the rules of the road. On a Pelican crossing a flashing ember gives priority to pedestrians.
    http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/pedestrians.html

    nothing in this refers to it.

    if anything, it contradicts the interpretation that most posters have assumed.


  • #18
    Eiretrains
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 273 ✭✭Eiretrains


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/pedestrians.html

    I think priority means to those pedestrians on the crossing at the time the flashing sequence begins, but pedestrians should not start to cross if it has already begun, as what was displayed on the old style push buttons (but these are mostly gone). For some reason the Irish webpage omits this. I always think of the Dad's Army demonstration.


  • #19
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    Eiretrains wrote: »
    I think priority means to those pedestrians on the crossing at the time the flashing sequence begins, but pedestrians should not start to cross if it has already begun, as what was displayed on the old style push buttons (but these are mostly gone). For some reason the Irish webpage omits this. I always think of the Dad's Army demonstration.


    with respect to your bold comment, is it you think or you know? Where is the rule?
    I've already shown you a link that seems to indicate that this is not true (or at least, that it is not specified).



    Under 'Rules for Pedestrians', the Driving school handbook says: "A flashing amber light at a pelican crossing gives priority to pedestrians. "

    Thats all it says, it mentions nothing about the comment you made in BOLD.


    I'm not saying your wrong, rather I'd like to see it written down somewhere.

    Anyway, assuming you are right, you can presumably see how there might be some confusion over this.

    Bottom line for me....

    If a ten year old walks out on a flashing green man and gets hit by a truck,is it enough to say
    "tough luck, you should have known the rules"
    or should one ackowledge that this is a confusing and ambigous situation that adults can't properly understand so you can hardly expect kids to.

    With regard to the comment re the UK.....and added issue is that there are not that many Pelican crossings in Ireland, ie not that many crossings where you hit the flashing amber. This means people are more likely to be unaware of how they work.


  • #20
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    This is what the rules of the road says:

    "Pelican crossing
    At this crossing, an amber light will flash for a short period after the red light for
    drivers goes out. Similarly, the ‘green man’ light for pedestrians will flash for a
    short time before changing to the ‘red man’ light. A flashing amber light at a
    pelican crossing gives priority to pedestrians.    "

    I've always assumed a flashing green gives me the right to cross if I'm at or approaching the junction (as a pedestrian).

    Either way I think it's not a system that works well in Ireland because:
    a) Many drivers don't care and will just drive through the flashing ambers at speed - so as a pedestrian you can't trust the lights anyway.
    b) There is no enforcement by the guards for people who break the lights
    c) Most cyclists almost completely ignore them and it can be highly dangerous for a pedestrian to cross.


  • #21
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Interestingly, this is on the city of London website

    "The Corporation no longer installs Pelican crossings as a standard light controlled crossing provides a better facility for pedestrians."

    They also say that in the UK, pedestrians shouldn't start to cross when the green light is flashing.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Eiretrains
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 273 ✭✭Eiretrains


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    with respect to your bold comment, is it you think or you know? Where is the rule?
    I've already shown you a link that seems to indicate that this is not true (or at least, that it is not specified).

    I think it's just not specified really. According to the Traffic Signs Manual:

    "9.8.7
    The pedestrian signal sequence is red figure, steady green figure, flashing green figure, red figure.
    The green figure flashes to indicate that pedestrians should not start to cross.
    The duration of the green figure signal, which indicates that pedestrians may start to cross the road, shall be based on the time to cross the full road width at a walking speed of 1.2m/s, and shall be a minimum of 6 seconds."

    This is what used to be displayed on our crossing push buttons, with the instructions to pedestrians. The 'WAIT' light for pedestrians appears when the flashing sequence begins. There are still some of these about, but the majority were all replaced about 10 years ago for the more modern arrow type, so they no longer say anything. I remember in school days you used to see leaflets issue by the the garda (or RSA if it existed back then?) with those old instructions.

    I totally agree with the ambiguity of these crossings though, and how there's so few examples of it compared to other crossings in Ireland. Also pedestrians have the right away on the roads in general, so in one way the crossing instructions are simply advisable. Motorists should always slow on the approach to a flashing amber anyway, like they do for a zebra crossing which is effectively the same thing.


  • #23
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Many motorists don't obey any light.

    Amber lights are treated as a joke, a huge percentage of motorists speed up rather than stop when there's loads of time to stop.

    Loads of motorists seem completely blind to filter lights and somehow see the green arrow lights turn green and then they turn left or right.

    Then there's the massive amount of motorists ones who -- usually in heavy traffic -- can't see the lights because they have already broken the rules about entering a junction without a clear way out. But it's often not just one car that breaks the light, those motorists have the side effect on the ones behind them who could see the lights if they looked but they only see the traffic on front of them move so they also move, like sheep or Lemmings.


  • #24
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,652 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Eiretrains wrote: »
    Maybe off topic, but regarding the traffic flows; I noticed during the boom years several of the old crossings were replaced with standard type crossings at junctions, as if it was too inconvenient to install the original sequence, and on main roads it often results in unnecessary prolonged wait, so much so that I have seen impatient motorists simply break the red lights when no pedestrians are around. If the original sequence was in place perhaps things might be safer for both parties.

    What do you mean by "old crossings" and "standard type crossings"?


  • #25
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,567 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Victor wrote: »
    What do you mean by "old crossings" and "standard type crossings"?

    old = zebra
    new = traffic light controlled

    maybe...?
    Tombo2000 wrote:
    Under 'Rules for Pedestrians', the Driving school handbook says: "A flashing amber light at a pelican crossing gives priority to pedestrians. "
    whatever that says is meaningless, the Raod Traffic Acts are they only thing that matter when it come to the laws of the roads


  • #26
    Del2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,164 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    Eiretrains wrote: »
    Also pedestrians have the right away on the roads in general, so in one way the crossing instructions are simply advisable. Motorists should always slow on the approach to a flashing amber anyway, like they do for a zebra crossing which is effectively the same thing.

    Pedestrians only have right of way if they enter a non light controlled junction before a vehicle. If a vehicle has entered the junction then the pedestrian has to let the vehicle exit the junction before crossing. Also if there are lights than the pedestrian is supposed to obey them and it was illegal for pedestrians to cross a road with IIRC 20m of a signal controlled junction.
    monument wrote: »
    Many motorists don't obey any light.

    Amber lights are treated as a joke, a huge percentage of motorists speed up rather than stop when there's loads of time to stop.

    Loads of motorists seem completely blind to filter lights and somehow see the green arrow lights turn green and then they turn left or right.

    Then there's the massive amount of motorists ones who -- usually in heavy traffic -- can't see the lights because they have already broken the rules about entering a junction without a clear way out. But it's often not just one car that breaks the light, those motorists have the side effect on the ones behind them who could see the lights if they looked but they only see the traffic on front of them move so they also move, like sheep or Lemmings.

    To be fair saying that motorists ignore lights is a bit silly since very few road users obey any of the laws. Pedestrians ignore red lights, cross at illegal place. Cyclists ignore red lights, don't light up at night. Motorists ignore red lights, exceed the posted speed limit etc etc

    I could go on but I think you get the drift. The only solution if for our law enforcers to enforce road traffic laws for ALL road users and not just the easiest ones.

    Don't forget that while a motorist may have more responsibility due to the potential for injury, every road user has to look after their own safety 1st. As even being in the right doesn't mean you won't get hurt or worst.


  • #27
    steve-o
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 914 ✭✭✭steve-o


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    But I did notice that at both lights, there is a system whereby light goes Red for traffic, and then goes green for pedestrian. Then it goes amber for traffic and flashing green for pedestrian
    That is not how it works. First the green man starts flashing. The traffic light stays red. After 3 or 4 seconds the amber light starts flashing for traffic. If the flashing starts simultaneously then the light is faulty.


  • #28
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    steve-o wrote: »
    That is not how it works. First the green man starts flashing. The traffic light stays red. After 3 or 4 seconds the amber light starts flashing for traffic. If the flashing starts simultaneously then the light is faulty.

    I hadnt noticed but maybe this the case.

    Either way I'd say its pedantics.

    My general point is that if there is flashing amber for drivers and flashing green for pedestrians, this creates confusion.

    We are are still debating here what the actual rule for pedestrians is on the green flashing man, no one has been able to define it.

    To be honest, I've seen enough on this thread to say there is no agreement on how these traffic lights work, and the rules are not reasily available on the internet and are not shown clearly on the Rules of the Road.

    So coming back to my initial point....

    this is a road where two school kids have been killed at Pelican pedestrian crossings in the past 5 years.

    As I mentioned earlier, I dont know the details of either case.

    But it does strike me that Pelican crossings present a major hazard to the pedestrian, particularly to kids who may make an assumption that they are safe to cross on a Green Man.

    Which leads to the next point....

    you would think the Dublin County Council might come out and review a street where two fatalities have ocurred.......but this does not appear to have happened.....


  • #29
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    Del2005 wrote: »

    To be fair saying that motorists ignore lights is a bit silly since very few road users obey any of the laws. Pedestrians ignore red lights, cross at illegal place. Cyclists ignore red lights, don't light up at night. Motorists ignore red lights, exceed the posted speed limit etc etc

    I could go on but I think you get the drift. The only solution if for our law enforcers to enforce road traffic laws for ALL road users and not just the easiest ones.

    Don't forget that while a motorist may have more responsibility due to the potential for injury, every road user has to look after their own safety 1st. As even being in the right doesn't mean you won't get hurt or worst.


    The problem I have with your post is that (in my view) you are saying "if only everyone obeyed the traffic laws, then we'd all be ok".

    Fair enough.

    I am not blaming the pedestrian or the motorist here.

    I am saying that Pelican crossings present an ambiguous unclear situation, especially for kids.

    A ten year old sees a green man and thinks it is safe to walk across. Its not good enough to say, tough luck ten year old, you are responsible for your own safety, you should have checked with the Road Traffic Act.
    A driver sees an amber light, and usually drives through it.

    Pelican crossings present an amber light and green man at the same time.


  • #30
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    old = zebra
    new = traffic light controlled

    maybe...?


    whatever that says is meaningless, the Raod Traffic Acts are they only thing that matter when it come to the laws of the roads

    http://www.rotr.ie/pdf-downloads/english/rules-of-the-road%20eng.pdf

    Page 167 of the Rules of the Road from the Road Safety Authority says exactly the same thing.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    OK I am offering this without endorsement of Irish traffic law or typical practice in pedestrian crossing provision.

    Traffic and Parking Regulations SI182/1997
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

    "(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light."

    I recall coming across a paper years ago that found that 70% of the female casualties at pedestrian crossings were knocked down during the green man phase at the lights.


  • #32
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    OK I am offering this without endorsement of Irish traffic law or typical practice in pedestrian crossing provision.

    Traffic and Parking Regulations SI182/1997
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

    "(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light."

    I recall coming across a paper years ago that found that 70% of the female casualties at pedestrian crossings were knocked down during the green man phase at the lights.


    Cheers, thanks for that.


  • #33
    steve-o
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 914 ✭✭✭steve-o


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    A ten year old sees a green man and thinks it is safe to walk across. Its not good enough to say, tough luck ten year old, you are responsible for your own safety, you should have checked with the Road Traffic Act.
    Ah come on. Kids are taught from an early age how to use a crossing. You don't start crossing on a flashing green man or orange man. You look for traffic even if you have a green man.

    Sometimes kids get distracted or rush and don't do what they have been taught, but ask any 10 year old and most will know how it works.

    It's sad that 2 kids have died in recent years, but you are grasping at straws to blame the design of the lights without having any of the facts at hand.


  • #34
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    steve-o wrote: »
    Ah come on. Kids are taught from an early age how to use a crossing. .

    what do you base that on? I'm talking specifically about Pelican crossings, rather than 'a crossing'.

    Nobody told me about it when I was in school. Wasnt obvious to a good few people participating on this thread.

    And specifically, I didnt blame the hazard of lights for these two incidents.

    I said these lights present a hazard, because they are not properly understood.


  • #35
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    As I mentioned earlier, I dont know the details of either case.

    But it does strike me that Pelican crossings present a major hazard to the pedestrian, particularly to kids who may make an assumption that they are safe to cross on a Green Man.
    You're making a major assumption there really. For all you know, both kids might have tripped while they crossed and banged their heads on the road, indicating that the crossing is fine but the road surface needs fixing. That is, you're assuming something is broken without any direct evidence to make that assumption.

    Pelican crossings are fine in my experience. Drivers are used to them, they know how to work with them. The two biggest problems with them as far as I can see are drivers rushing to get through before the ped light goes green, but more commonly are peds rushing to get across before their light goes red.
    It seems to me that it would make more sense if the sequence was "Green - Flashing Red - Red", as a flashing green or an amber doesn't mean "stop" to pedestrians, it means "speed up". Or even the US style which has "Cross - Do not Cross (flashing) - Do not cross (solid)". That's unambiguous.

    Zebra crossings are quite dangerous IMO because we don't see them much, so many people forget (or just don't know) how they work.


  • #36
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    seamus wrote: »
    You're making a major assumption there really. .


    The only assumption I made is that kids may not know what a flashing green man at a pelcian crossing signifies....... why would that be a wrong assumption.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,652 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Del2005 wrote: »
    To be fair saying that motorists ignore lights is a bit silly since very few road users obey any of the laws. eir own safety 1st. As even being in the right doesn't mean you won't get hurt or worst.
    Pedestrians and cyclists don't kill hundreds of people per year.


  • #38
    Del2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,164 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    Victor wrote: »
    Pedestrians and cyclists don't kill hundreds of people per year.

    How can there have been hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists killed per year?

    We had 185 road deaths last year, of which 45 where pedestrians and 9 where cyclists.

    Of the 12 people killed this year there where 3 pedestrians and no cyclists. When you consider that everyone is a pedestrian and not everyone drives that's a fairly good statistical chance of not being killed walking or cycling.

    But they still put themselves into situations where they can be killed. It's rare that a car mounts a footpath, while cyclists being hit by morons cutting across them is common, there are plenty of times where cyclists and pedestrians could have been killed but for the quick reactions of a motorist who had the right of way stopping.

    The problem is that we now always want to place the blame on someone else. It's up to each and every person to look after their own safety, that includes teaching your children, and not a nanny state that doesn't enforce the basic laws, but still blames the motorist in the majority of cases.


  • #39
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    Del2005 wrote: »
    How can there have been hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists killed per year?

    We had 185 road deaths last year, of which 45 where pedestrians and 9 where cyclists.

    Of the 12 people killed this year there where 3 pedestrians and no cyclists. When you consider that everyone is a pedestrian and not everyone drives that's a fairly good statistical chance of not being killed walking or cycling.

    But they still put themselves into situations where they can be killed. It's rare that a car mounts a footpath, while cyclists being hit by morons cutting across them is common, there are plenty of times where cyclists and pedestrians could have been killed but for the quick reactions of a motorist who had the right of way stopping.

    The problem is that we now always want to place the blame on someone else. It's up to each and every person to look after their own safety, that includes teaching your children, and not a nanny state that doesn't enforce the basic laws, but still blames the motorist in the majority of cases.


    He never said hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists are killed by motorists every year.

    Of course you are right, cyclists can be as responsible for accidents as drivers, ditto pedestrians.

    This thread is not blaming anyone, its saying that a particular type of pedestrian crossing causes confusion and could be dangerous.


  • #40
    cast_iron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    This thread is not blaming anyone, its saying that a particular type of pedestrian crossing causes confusion and could be dangerous.
    With respect, it's only confusing to the ignorant.
    All outweighed by what is ultimately poor and dangerous driving as car drivers taking risks for whatever reason.
    It is true though, in the absence of a "red" light, an increasing number of drivers tend to consider that to mean "go" regardless. Coupled with pedestrians crossing when they shouldn't, accidents numbers will be more than they would otherwise be.


  • #41
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    cast_iron wrote: »
    With respect, it's only confusing to the ignorant.


    With respect, my concern would be that its confusing to children.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    cast_iron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    With respect, my concern would be that its confusing to children.
    If children haven't been thought how to cross the road properly or do still not know how to, then their parents should escort them until they are competent enough to do so. The child either knows what the flashing light means or doesn't. I'd argue that it's adults that are more likely to be "confused" at crossings - due to ignorance.

    The notion that parents let children cross the road without teaching them how is a bit reckless in my opinion anyway. It really is when you think about it.


  • #43
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    cast_iron wrote: »
    The notion that parents let children cross the road without teaching them how is a bit reckless in my opinion anyway. It really is when you think about it.

    It is indeed reckless.

    But it happens.

    The assumption here that people make is....."I have a perfect understanding of how these things work.....ergo.... everyone else does too".


  • #44
    Del2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,164 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    cast_iron wrote: »
    All outweighed by what is ultimately poor and dangerous driving as car drivers taking risks for whatever reason.

    The problem is that all road users are taking risks, it's just that vulnerable road users end up paying the most.

    If a child, or adult, is confused by a set of traffic lights then that child shouldn't be allowed out on it's own. Unless they know the how to use the lights then they aren't safe on the roads.

    And yes kids will run out onto the road, but that's because there's always someone else to blame it's never the child or their parents fault.


  • #45
    cast_iron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    The assumption here that people make is....."I have a perfect understanding of how these things work.....ergo.... everyone else does too".
    True. The question remains at what stage should the state intervene to make things more explicit at the expense of traffic flow?
    To be honest, I'm not aware of any large number of extra fatalities/serious accidents as a result of nothing more than flashing amber lights and risk taking drivers. If the evidence to the contrary was produced, then it would be time the state took action.


  • #46
    Tombo2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Tombo2000


    cast_iron wrote: »
    True. The question remains at what stage should the state intervene to make things more explicit at the expense of traffic flow?
    To be honest, I'm not aware of any large number of extra fatalities/serious accidents as a result of nothing more than flashing amber lights and risk taking drivers. If the evidence to the contrary was produced, then it would be time the state took action.


    I'll put my hands up here and say that traffic flow is something that I could not care less about.

    However as a parent of young children, I would say that Traffic is my number one concern, no questions....there is nothing else that worries me more with regard to the kids.

    I cant say for sure that a five year old won't leg it across the road at a level crossing, or anywhere else for that matter, no matter how many times I tell them to stay on the footpath (and if you want to go down the road of 'why dont you just hold their hand/ keep them indoors' etc, please only do so if you are a parent yourself).

    As a result, I would prefer if cars drove much much slower than they do, and my preference would be that there were spped bumps everywhere you looked, and proper speed bumps that you nearly have to stop to get over them. Now I know that won't happen.....the world wont shift to suit me.

    I don't believe drivers generally are reckless. however I do believe that 1 driver in 100 could be reckless, and that is enough to provide a significant threat in my view.

    I know I'm going off topic here, but it does relate to the flashing amber situation also.


  • #47
    Del2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,164 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    I'll put my hands up here and say that traffic flow is something that I could not care less about.

    However as a parent of young children, I would say that Traffic is my number one concern, no questions....there is nothing else that worries me more with regard to the kids.

    I cant say for sure that a five year old won't leg it across the road at a level crossing, or anywhere else for that matter, no matter how many times I tell them to stay on the footpath (and if you want to go down the road of 'why dont you just hold their hand/ keep them indoors' etc, please only do so if you are a parent yourself).

    As a result, I would prefer if cars drove much much slower than they do, and my preference would be that there were spped bumps everywhere you looked, and proper speed bumps that you nearly have to stop to get over them. Now I know that won't happen.....the world wont shift to suit me.

    I don't believe drivers generally are reckless. however I do believe that 1 driver in 100 could be reckless, and that is enough to provide a significant threat in my view.

    I know I'm going off topic here, but it does relate to the flashing amber situation also.

    Speed bumps aren't a solution. There's someoutside my place and they use them for jumping.

    Enforcement of the current laws would improve safety. They should do as the USA does and have double punishment for offences committed in school zones, the most time I saw cop cars in the US was during school zone hours in school zones, with lower limits and parking enforcement.


  • #48
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    I cant say for sure that a five year old won't leg it across the road at a level crossing, or anywhere else for that matter, no matter how many times I tell them to stay on the footpath (and if you want to go down the road of 'why dont you just hold their hand/ keep them indoors' etc, please only do so if you are a parent yourself).

    I suspect that for small, juvenile, hairless apes evolving on the African savanah, standing passively out in the open in the presence of large fast predators (cars/lions/hyenas delete as appropriate) was not a survival trait.

    I can see how an instinct for sprinting from cover to cover might have conferred advantages that get passed on to offspring. My knee jerk reaction to the idea that the primary answer to the safety of small children is "safe cross codes" is not printable here.

    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    As a result, I would prefer if cars drove much much slower than they do, and my preference would be that there were spped bumps everywhere you looked, and proper speed bumps that you nearly have to stop to get over them. Now I know that won't happen.....the world wont shift to suit me.

    We should have such speed bumps everywhere they are needed in our towns. They should also have black and white stripes and orange flashing beacons. It will happen here if enough people stand up and fight for it. I am in a position to say that there is strong political support in Galway for the idea that we should have more zebra crossings. The resistance is coming from the roads engineers not the councillors. This is one of the reasons why we need a property tax - if the councillors had proper budgets they could force the roads engineers hands.
    Tombo2000 wrote: »
    I know I'm going off topic here, but it does relate to the flashing amber situation also.

    In my view it is entirely on topic


  • #49
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    cast_iron wrote: »
    True. The question remains at what stage should the state intervene to make things more explicit at the expense of traffic flow?
    To be honest, I'm not aware of any large number of extra fatalities/serious accidents as a result of nothing more than flashing amber lights and risk taking drivers. If the evidence to the contrary was produced, then it would be time the state took action.

    Are you sure? Have you added in the levels of obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease etc? These result, in part, from the imposition of sedentary lifestyles due to the state's abject failure to tackle traffic danger and provide a workable environment for people who wish to walk - or let their children walk.


Advertisement