h a l f b a k e r y"More like a cross between an onion, a golf ball, and a roman multi-tiered arched aquaduct."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Transparent paving blocks embedded in the roadway light up
when weight-sensitive panels are trodden on at either end of
the crossing. The panels take five seconds to warm up, giving
motorists a chance to react. Pedestrians can moonwalk across
the road in the knowledge that they are fully visible
to
approaching motorists. For places like Sweden and Singapore,
a CCTV can be attached to register the faces of kids who
'step and run'.
[link]
|
| |
A car travelling at 60 mph is travelling at 88 feet per second. If the average crosswalk is 15 feet wide, then that same car can traverse almost 6 crosswalks in a second. I don't think your five second "warm up " period is going to be very effective at reducing crossing fatalities. This may be a worthwhile idea, [adhib], but you need to refine the details. (You also need to define how your "weight-sensitive panels" are substantially different or even better than the push-button devices already installed at most urban controlled intersections.) |
|
| |
query back to jurist; why is a car travelling at 60 mph in a built-up area? |
|
| |
Kameleon: Though not as common as in Britain, cameras outside and in shops have become much more prevalent now. |
|
| |
I think the key point is the illumination of the crosswalk, not the timing or activation details. If the result is *very* visible crosswalks in poorly lit or fog and rain-prone areas, I'm for it. However, I have reservations about traction control on wet glass. |
|
| |
Great concept, but I don't understand the 5 second delay. Why not immediate?
I'd also like a little DDR action: add a soundtrack and light up the steps. (DDR=dance dance revolution) |
|
| |
Zebra crossings in Britain already have permanently lit beacons to alert oncoming traffic. And on-demand pedestrian crossings worldwide have traffic lights. |
|
| |
If these are intended to allow pedestrians to cross the road at random points, then people like me will simply walk along the kerb, activating every light on the road. CCTV or no CCTV. |
|
| |
Finally, as pretty as it sounds, are you sure you can come up with sufficiently high impact embedded light panels that can take the pounding of tractor trailers day in, day out. |
|
| |
//query back to jurist; why is a car travelling at 60 mph in a built-up area?//
Obligatory "Only in L.A." Post |
|
| |
1/ Music? You bet!
2/ Materials - agreed, glass = bad, hence transparent
surface specified - to be researched. I guess there's
polymers and textured surfaces that'd cover it. Painted
surfaces have to be renewed within a few years of use.
Replacement panels could be more efficient to replace
(no unionised labour necessary, no watching the paint
dry).
3/ 5 seconds/traffic lights. I'm interested in both
convenience to motorists and pedestrian safety (and
pedestrian fun, while we're at it). In the UK, drivers are
often left in doubt when approaching a 'zebra' whether
the old biddy somewhat near the crossing intends to
cross or not. The Billie lights establish that pretty
emphatically, but don't have the drawback that they'll
stay lit long after a pedestrian has crossed, causing
unnecessary congestion.
4/ Zebra crossings. Very often poorly illuminated in urban
areas (especially the less salubrious ones, where drunken
pedestrians are at their most unpredictable). People are
often run over on them (especially by cops, for some
reason).
5/ Weight sensitivity vs buttons. All pedestrians in
whatever configuration of carrier bags/kids/wheelchairs/
etc can exert weight with a toe, without further
inconvenience. |
|
| |