http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/03/04/ohio-puts-the-squeeze-on-peoples-right-to-walk/

 

The country’s seventh most populous state is rolling back pedestrians’ right-of-way within crosswalks when they have a walk signal. The state of Ohio recently updated its Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, putting in place new limits on people’s legal rights to walk without risk of being at fault in the event of a collision.

The new rules require pedestrians to yield to cars turning right or left on red at the beginning of the green signal. Columbus-area cycling advocate Patricia Kovacs, in a petition she is circulating, said the state of Ohio allows for walk signals as short as four seconds. Surrendering right of way at the beginning of the walk cycle might mean missing out on a chance for pedestrians to cross the street safely and legally.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/03/04/ohio-puts-the-squeeze-on-peoples-right-to-walk/

 

The country’s seventh most populous state is rolling back pedestrians’ right-of-way within crosswalks when they have a walk signal. The state of Ohio recently updated its Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, putting in place new limits on people’s legal rights to walk without risk of being at fault in the event of a collision.

The new rules require pedestrians to yield to cars turning right or left on red at the beginning of the green signal. Columbus-area cycling advocate Patricia Kovacs, in a petition she is circulating, said the state of Ohio allows for walk signals as short as four seconds. Surrendering right of way at the beginning of the walk cycle might mean missing out on a chance for pedestrians to cross the street safely and legally.

 

Oh yes, it is a huge problem, being brought to us by a cycling advocate? I admit with all of the right turn signals combined with the opposing direction left turn, there is little time for a pedestrian to cross a street. At the same time, most of the intersections I travel through have few to none pedestrians crossing.

 

Perhaps there needs to be a person push button activated walk light which stops traffic in all directions. This I can aqree with. But just a blanket statement pedestrians are being placed in jeopardy, just another anti-car position taken by the vast minority.

I don't get your point.  If there is no pedestrian there, there is no problem with the new rule.  The problem is when there IS a pedestrian in the crosswalk.  Now it is no longer legally clear that pedestrians do have the right of way when they are in the crosswalk, as used to be the case.

My understanding of this thing is that it when the traffic turning needs to clear the intersection as red comes, they are allowed to go. (Instead of staying in the intersection and 'blocking the box.') I think it is still illegal to run a red light, so this wouldn't really be too different.

 

///

 

But just a blanket statement pedestrians are being placed in jeopardy, just another anti-car position taken by the vast minority.

 

For those of us that are use crosswalks while the Walk sign is on, and still get hit by non-attentive drivers turning (with a green light), yes that is putting us in jeopardy. I've been hit, and seen others hit too many times. If the vast majority thinks that is acceptable, then this is a situation when the majority shouldn't be allowed to have the decision.

Push to walk systems are kinda BS. On my commute if you haven't hit the button before the yellow that precedes the walk window you're sitting there for a whole cycle. The traffic pattern doesn't even change whether there is a button pushed or not. They just don't give you the WALK. It doesn't really affect me except for making me irritated as I cross safely just about every day anyway.

As Ohio inches up in the "fattest state" and unhealthy ratings, legislators should be making laws to encourage walking and excercise and making it as safe a possible, not making it an activity that makes it an "at your own risk" proposition. The state gives out drivers licenses to residents as a privilege, and with that privilege comes the responsibility to follow rules and laws that come with operating a large machine safely and watching for others around you. Personal responsibilty is written off for so many drivers as "Ooops, it was just an accident", and they are slapped on the hand. Laws like this continue to relieve drivers of any personal responsibility for careless actions.

 

A child walking to school or an elderly person is not part of an "anti car" conspiracy. Lets make them more responsible for their own safety and give adult drivers another reason to believe they always have the right of way??

^Bam...I agree completely.

When I first read of this new law that in effect declares open season on pedestrians---who were already at a disadvantage---I was appalled. It's just another symbolic act that establishes the auto as a person that has rights over humans. What's next? A state law that mandates newborn babies be given an automobile at birth?

I don't think anyone is going to argue that pedestrians need a SAFE manner to cross an intersection. But than let's argue to make it SAFE. I agree many WALK lights are way too short, particularly for older people crossing multi-lane intersections. And there should be no traffic permitted to encroach on the crosswalk, performing a left or right turn or otherwise. But I disagree that a Walk Pushbutton is not a good solution. It is a simple problem of signal control. When the through traffic is held for the crosswalk, than any turn signals must also be held for the duration of the WALK light, which must be sufficient to permit the pedestrian to cross. I am sure the traffic signal control engineers can figure this out. If we are going to make it SAFE for the pedestrian then make it SAFE. But don't increase the signal cycle time for every cycle even when there is no pedestrian there to cross. The pedestrian needs some responsibility in this also.

 

I observe an intersection near me which is in front of two schools. The two intersecting streets are each 4-lanes wide plus left-turn lanes. When school is convening or letting out I see many students wanting to cross the intersection. At these times the WALK signals need to be extended due to the volume of students crossing. But at other times of the day there is nary a pedestrian in sight. There are already reduced speed signals for the school zones and I see no reason why the same actuators could not be used to change the timing on the WALK lights. I know some motorists would be upset at increased signal cycle timing combined with the reduced speed, but that is not the point. The point is to protect the kids. As it is now I observe kids running across the intersections whenever there is a lull in traffic, WALK light or not. This is a dangerous situation which also needs to be stopped.

If we want pedestrians to be considered safe in a crosswalk, then why make a law that disregards the whole concept of a 'Walk light' having safe-crossing status? 

I don't think anyone is going to argue that pedestrians need a SAFE manner to cross an intersection. But than let's argue to make it SAFE. I agree many WALK lights are way too short, particularly for older people crossing multi-lane intersections. And there should be no traffic permitted to encroach on the crosswalk, performing a left or right turn or otherwise. But I disagree that a Walk Pushbutton is not a good solution. It is a simple problem of signal control. When the through traffic is held for the crosswalk, than any turn signals must also be held for the duration of the WALK light, which must be sufficient to permit the pedestrian to cross. I am sure the traffic signal control engineers can figure this out. If we are going to make it SAFE for the pedestrian then make it SAFE. But don't increase the signal cycle time for every cycle even when there is no pedestrian there to cross. The pedestrian needs some responsibility in this also.

 

I observe an intersection near me which is in front of two schools. The two intersecting streets are each 4-lanes wide plus left-turn lanes. When school is convening or letting out I see many students wanting to cross the intersection. At these times the WALK signals need to be extended due to the volume of students crossing. But at other times of the day there is nary a pedestrian in sight. There are already reduced speed signals for the school zones and I see no reason why the same actuators could not be used to change the timing on the WALK lights. I know some motorists would be upset at increased signal cycle timing combined with the reduced speed, but that is not the point. The point is to protect the kids. As it is now I observe kids running across the intersections whenever there is a lull in traffic, WALK light or not. This is a dangerous situation which also needs to be stopped.

 

I have a better idea.  Make the lights all red all the time.  When a car pulls up to them, the driver can get out and push a button to change the signal.  That way pedestrians don't have to wait for cars that aren't there.  Drivers should bear responsibility in this.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that pedestrians need a SAFE manner to cross an intersection. But than let's argue to make it SAFE. I agree many WALK lights are way too short, particularly for older people crossing multi-lane intersections. And there should be no traffic permitted to encroach on the crosswalk, performing a left or right turn or otherwise. But I disagree that a Walk Pushbutton is not a good solution. It is a simple problem of signal control. When the through traffic is held for the crosswalk, than any turn signals must also be held for the duration of the WALK light, which must be sufficient to permit the pedestrian to cross. I am sure the traffic signal control engineers can figure this out. If we are going to make it SAFE for the pedestrian then make it SAFE. But don't increase the signal cycle time for every cycle even when there is no pedestrian there to cross. The pedestrian needs some responsibility in this also.

 

I observe an intersection near me which is in front of two schools. The two intersecting streets are each 4-lanes wide plus left-turn lanes. When school is convening or letting out I see many students wanting to cross the intersection. At these times the WALK signals need to be extended due to the volume of students crossing. But at other times of the day there is nary a pedestrian in sight. There are already reduced speed signals for the school zones and I see no reason why the same actuators could not be used to change the timing on the WALK lights. I know some motorists would be upset at increased signal cycle timing combined with the reduced speed, but that is not the point. The point is to protect the kids. As it is now I observe kids running across the intersections whenever there is a lull in traffic, WALK light or not. This is a dangerous situation which also needs to be stopped.

 

I have a better idea.  Make the lights all red all the time.  When a car pulls up to them, the driver can get out and push a button to change the signal.  That way pedestrians don't have to wait for cars that aren't there.  Drivers should bear responsibility in this.

 

I like the way you think.

 

I think Summit Street is right that this is intended to clear intersections quickly to prevent box blocking. But it really is a dumb revision. It's never going to be enforced in real time (can you imagine the officer writing that ticket?); it's essentially a get-out-of-jail free card for a-hole drivers who hit pedestrians when trying to exit the box after their cycle ends. I know it can be tough turning left without a turn lane at times, but generally speaking, drivers who end up in the box after their light cycle deserve to be honked at and shamed (and ticketed), not a legally sanctioned clear path.

It's pretty annoying in urban areas when there aren't crosswalks on all sides of intersections. So you essentially have to cross one of the streets before you can cross the other street. Usually this is done to make it easier for cars turning right, giving them the ability to do so without having to look out for pedestrians.

 

I noticed the following on Google StreetView and am a little confused. Somewhere between Aug. 2009 and May 2011, the crosswalk on the north side of this intersection (Woodward and Main, Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati) was removed, leaving only the crosswalk on the south side:

 

 

 

But there is virtually no traffic on Woodward. It is a tiny stub of a street that dead ends into a park. So why did anyone think it was worth the effort to remove this crosswalk?

Was this to add one parking space?  If so, that's a pretty stupid reason.