Comments on: Making Safer Intersections the Rule, Not the Exception

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:00:14 +0000

“I’d love to hear a traffic engineer give ONE reason why traffic backing up is worse than injury or loss of life.”

The relative income, wealth and/or political connections of the people in the private motor vehicles vs. the people on foot (who presumably traveled to the area via transit)?

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:15:10 +0000

“Repeatedly, though, the question arises of how to justify the adjacent loss of green time for vehicles.”

… I’d love to hear a traffic engineer give ONE reason why traffic backing up is worse than injury or loss of life.

Well, I’m always glad to hear about more LPIs! Especially at “gateways” into the city; It forces drivers to understand they’ve left the interstate and need to calm their driving for the remainder of their journey.

By: gecko

gecko — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:17:15 +0000

Regarding the disparity in standards in safety for automobile passengers and pedestrians:

There seems to be a certain amount of legal complexity if a passenger in an automobile is injured or killed in an accident as the result of not using the legally prescribed safety equipment or if it does not work correctly like seatbelts and airbags and where liability exists; i.e., proper implementation of the legal standard of safety for automobile passengers.

Does similar legal complexity emerge in those cases were pedestrians are injured or killed at intersections without LPIs which seems to be the standard of safety at intersections?

By: Clarence Eckerson Jr.

Clarence Eckerson Jr. — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:16:41 +0000

Other benefits to LPIs that people at 34th/Dyer talked about – it was actually more quiet in the area. Since impatient drivers would start immediately honking in cars queued behind drivers who did actually yield to peds who were waiting the five or six seconds to let peds get started, now since the light is red, they have no choice but to wait patiently.

By: 40x14

40x14 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:43:39 +0000

And more red light cameras too. For example at the base of the Williamsburg bridge as cars come speeding off (and on) the bridge at Delancey street, a condition exists to create the opposite of a LPI.

It is a LVI, a leading vehicular interval. Every time (we) pedestrians have the light, we are forced to wait for just a few more vehicles to finish crossing the intersection in order to make our journey south of Delancey.

Although there are usually a few traffic cops there, these guys seem a bit jaded and disenchanted – focused on keeping the flow of traffic moving not the flow of pedestrians.

A red light camera doesn’t make judgement calls, and could prevent frequent scofflaws from venturing out into the intersection in order to save a couple of seconds.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:24:27 +0000

LPI is start but we need dedicated pedestrian crossing signals. We should never be giving the mixed message of pedestrian getting a walk signal at the same time cars are given a green light that would allow them to turn into the cross walk.

By: ddartley

ddartley — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:47:53 +0000

“Repeatedly, though, the question arises of how to justify the adjacent loss of green time for vehicles.”

That makes my head explode. There are far more pedestrians in NYC than car occupants. I know that motorists are more valuable human beings, but maybe we should throw a bone to pedestrians.