The Insane Ways Traffic Engineers Try to Make Streets "Safe" For Walking (CityNerd) - eviltoast

RRFBs. HAWK signals. Do any of these devices actually do what they’re supposed to do, and how do traffic engineers decide when and where to install them?

As a European, much of this was mind-boggling to me. While I believe all of this is real, I still found myself wondering throughout the video: Is this actually the norm in the US, or are these some cherry-picked bad examples? It felt for me like a whole other level of systemic hostility.

  • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    The US can be a pretty boggling place to try and bike or walk, yes.

    He’s talking about some pretty cool bike infrastructure that they’re at least introducing in ABQ that is pretty sweet compared to when I grew up there in the 80s though. I remember biking down Lead or Lomas in the mornings with no bike lane at all and rush hour traffic trying to get around me non-stop, lol. I remember I felt slightly safer on Lomas even though it was 50mph+ traffic just because the lanes were really wide.

  • bob_lemon@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    HAWK really confused me. Why not just put a regular light at the pedestrian crossing? Why build a similar, but ultimately unfamiliar array of lights instead?

    • notatoad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because there’s a market for companies to sell bullshit like this. Cities are looking for solutions to make it look like they’re doing something, without actually taking any space from cars.

      Being visible and weird is the point. Doing something isn’t. They’re selling a service of providing the appearance of “innovation” to municipal streets departments.