---- Scott Ellington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Every pedestrian has surely had the
> experience of arriving when the traffic light just after it has
> turned green, but the WALK light is not on. Legally, the pedestrian
> is supposed to push the button and wait for the next cycle.
>
> When the traffic light turns green anyway, what possible purpose can
> there be for the walk light NOT to come on, except to save turning
> motorists the unspeakable inconvenience of having to wait for a
> pedestrian who got to the button a little too late?
Actually, at the new talking signal at E. Washington and N/S Baldwin, if you
get there while the light is green (but no Walk signal) for Baldwin and press
the button, the walk light will go on immediately during that Baldwin-green
cycle. This is such a no-brainer, I don't understand why it took until now to
materialize, and why it's only the case at (apparently) only one intersection.
And at those intersections with buttons for the Walk light, the green for the
cross ("smaller") street is shorter without the button/Walk light than it is
with the button/Walk light. I presume this somehow improves traffic flow for
the "main" street; otherwise they wouldn't go to the expense.
In an earlier message, someone mentioned that in those intersections with
sensors for cars, the ones that don't cycle at all until a car trips the
sensor, that it immediately changes the light. Before the reconstruction, E.
Washington and N/S Ingersoll had such a system, and it NEVER changed
immediately. The wait, after pulling up to trip the sensor, was about the same
as the wait after pressing the Walk button. Granted, the infrastructure
generally is WAY too car-centric (see how well the crosswalks on medians are
cleared of snow these days...), but this is not such a case.
---------------
Paul T. O'Leary
Chronic Nuisance
Madison, WI USA
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
