Pedestrian Safety

[tomvazquez 0]

Hey guys, I just started a petition online to be sent to the New York City Council by the end of the month. It is regarding unsafe pedestrian conditions in New York and urges the council to implement Leading Pedestrian Intervals at intersections. The LPI signals pedestrians to cross before vehicles allowing them to be more visible, especially to those vehicles turning right. Show your support by signing the petition, you dont have to be from NYC to sign it. Thanks.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/NYC-LeadingPestrianInterval

[hawkpride147 1]

there is plenty of signalization...and the adjusting of the timing wouldn't really help...the taxis in nyc don't care...neither do most pedestrians. the new york city council likely won't listen...especially if it's online only and if it isn't signed by new yorkers...

[Hahayoudied 3]

In Lanzhoug (a city located in China), they installed pedestrian bridges overpass with stairs and ramps for people in the wheelchair so people can cross the roads without slowing down the road traffic or risking getting hit by a car. However, installing those type of bridges on the roads cost a lot of money, and could take up a lot of space.

Also, Lanzhoug passed a law to reduce the number of taxis in the downtown area. For example, the first day, only taxis with odd numbers can go into downtown, the even numbered taxis can not. The next day, only taxis with even numbers can go into downtown, odd numbered taxis can not. The pattern repeats every day, and the law only applies to taxis.

The new NYC pedestrian bill doesn't sound effeicent, so, I am not going to sign the petition.

What NYC should really do is cut down the number of cars and taxis in the downtown area, and install some pedestrian bridges overpass in the downtown area.

[Duke87 1,070]

Okay, exactly what good would changing the way the signals work do?

I mean, have you ever seen pedestrians in New York? Who the hell waits for the walk signal to cross the street, anyway?

I know I don't.

[waterstreet 1]

I agree with Duke87's premise. It's difficult but I believe streets can't become pedestrian friendly until there is a general shift of the city's attitude toward pedestrians. I live in Boulder, CO. and here pedestrians and bicyclists always have priority over the cars even when there is no crosswalk. It is like that because Boulder only has about 100,000 people, and for some collective reason the majority of us hate driving and prefer to walk, ride, or take one of the dozen buses to get around in the city. In order for a city to become more compassionate to those not being moved around on I.C.E. engines there must be an awareness for the benefits of not driving yourself. (right that doesn't make a lot a sense.) I guess what I am trying to say is that by not being such a CarNation and sharing the road we not only make it safer but also create a better and more efficient transit system. Yes pedestrians can cause traffic, but then again rush-hour can be so bad, at least where I'm from that walking or biking is faster than driving.

[Duke87 1,070]

Hey, it's not an issue of the city's attitude towards pedestrians. It's an issue of pedestrian's attitude towards the city.

Doesn't matter what you do with the drvers. What you'd need to do is make all those pedestrians stop always being in such a hurry to get everywhere and actually be willing to wait for the light. Good luck with that.

Besides, I doubt that would really work, either. The sheer volume of pedestrians at times means that you can't have everyone waiting for the light because then people would be arriving at the corner looking to cross at a faster rate than the light would permit them to, and you'd cause a huge foot traffic jam.

[wishfulanthony 3]

It's really a matter of who is responsible and who has the priority that matters here. True that pedestrians have the right of way over cars, but, with a heavily-compact city like New York City or San Francisco (where I live), it can be a little impossible to build pedestrian overpasses over busy streets because it will impede city traffic (temporarily) while the constructions take place, and it will take millions of dollars for construction, road closures, and possible rehabilitation of the area/s that will have those pedestrian overpasses.

Walking can be good to one's health, and it is a huge recommendation for us to walk at least 30 minutes daily to keep us in shape. I think a best-bet solution is to either widen the pedestrian lanes and place appropriate "barriers" along its path to make sure that cars will not impede with pedestrian traffic, or better yet, make pedestrian-only streets in the busiest commercial areas in the city and replace the roads with trams to enable the people to ride transit and walk at the same time! That way, people will reduce their emission of CO2 in the air due to driving cars; instead, they can exercise and ride transit because it's cheaper and better for the environment.

[Hahayoudied 3]

There will be people and car compaineswho will oppose pedestrian-only streets. Why?  Rich snobs (who wants to show off with their fancy car), idiots who think driving is a better choice (it is the SLOWEST way to commute in dense cities), and others.

However, I do agree about the pedestrian-only streets and expanding the pedestrian lanes. Also, there should be bus stops, subway stations, and parking lots at a area where the pedestrian-only streets meets the regular streets to encourage more people to walk or take the bus or subway.

Oh, by the way, even though the pedestrian overpasses cost a lot of money, can only built on streets with wide pedestrian lanes, and messes with the traffic temporarily; the over passes reduces the amount of people crossing the roads, which allows the city's traffic to travel more smoothly. Plus, that means more people will walk.

[Duke87 1,070]

The problem with pedestrian overpasses is that they require you to climb up and over traffic. It takes less effort to simply walk across the street rather than climbing stairs or a ramp to go over it only to then go back down at the other side.

I'd rather just cross the street directly. Because it's a path of less resistance.

Pedestrian only streets aren't necessarily a bad thing, but like with anything, too many of them is a bad thing. For one thing, don't do it with a street that would be a potentially major traffic thoroughfare. Do it with already somewhat quiet side streets. For another, limit the number of them, and limit them to highly densely populated areas. A few pedestrian only streets in Lower Manhattan do the place good (there already are several). Pedestrian only streets off in a corner of Queens or the Bronx would be pointless and do more harm than good.

Also, what are these "pedestrian lanes" you speak of? Aren't those usually known as "sidewalks"?