Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

@Rich:
You're misunderstanding me, too.

If a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, the driver is required to yield. The flashing upraised hand does not mean that the way should be clear. It's called the "clearance" phase for a reason. It's to give time for pedestrians already within the crosswalk to clear it.

While it appears these teenagers entered the crosswalk in the clearance phase (which, as you point, out is illegal), someone who entered lawfully could still be in the crosswalk.

A flashing upraised hand, therefore, does not indicate that "the way is clear". Drivers in Maryland are not permitted to enter the crosswalk when a pedestrian is in it.

A study (I'll see if I can find it) was conducted a few years ago to test the effectiveness of pedestrian countdown timers.

What it discovered was that the timers actually increased the number of pedestrians who entered the crosswalk during the clearance/'flashing' phase. But it decreased the number of pedestrians who were still in the crosswalk when the solid upraised hand came on.

So what can we glean from that?

When given adequate information, pedestrians will make better decisions. The flashing upraised hand is designed so that it gives enough time for the slowest pedestrians to cross. An able-bodied teen would still have plenty time to cross if he or she entered just as the flashing hand came on.

They look and say, oh, the timer says I have 25 seconds to cross, and I know it only takes me 15-20.

Or, alternatively, they say, oh, the timer says 3 seconds; there's no way I can make it.

The teens crossing Landover Road would likely have had no indication about how long they had to cross safely. And given suburban signal timing, they might have been standing on a narrow, dark sidewalk for 3 minutes. They made a poor judgment, and it cost a young person his life.

But the person responsible for pedestrian safety should at least understand that the design of our roadways forces people to decide between often-severe inconvenience and taking a risk. And if he can't figure out that roadway design plays a factor, he might need to find a new line of work.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 20, 2011 1:18 pm • linkreport

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator pagespam