Advocacy & Safety - Car Max commercial

I just saw a Carmax commercial where they were saying that smart/not smart. According to the commercial in Ks pedestrians have to wear taillights when crossing the highway. I have to say that actually I think that that is a smart idea. As we all know that pedestrians can be very hard to see at night.

yeah but it's extra points if they're not wearing lights when you hit them...

why would pedestrians be crossing a highway?

I've seen pictures of a pedestrian who was hit by four eighteen wheelers and five cars while attempting to cross Interstate 65 in Birmingham, Alabama. I won't go in to the details, but needless to say it did considerable damage. Under certain circumstances, pedestrians carrying lights are a good idea.

Carrying lights isn't going to do much when cars are traveling over 70 and the drivers aren't looking for people crossing...

Be careful of what you express as a good idea. Hawaii has many motorist that cannot avoid killing pedestrians. To solve the problem we had a couple legislators that wrote laws that would require pedestrians to do such things like carry a flag to hold out when they want to cross, stop at the corner and hold a leg out at 45 degrees, make eye contact with the driver and wait until the driver gave permission for the pedestrian to cross. All of these laws were for pedestrians at crosswalks.

As I see it... a pedestrian crossing the highway without lights or signals will likely get killed.

A pedestrian carrying a light across a highway will likely kill more people due to the efforts of drivers trying to swerve, brake, or otherwise avoid the pedestrian. On busy highways there will be dozens of cars involved.

Why does a pedestrian need to cross a highway? ... oh, yeah.

Be careful of what you express as a good idea. Hawaii has many motorist that cannot avoid killing pedestrians. To solve the problem we had a couple legislators that wrote laws that would require pedestrians to do such things like carry a flag to hold out when they want to cross, stop at the corner and hold a leg out at 45 degrees, make eye contact with the driver and wait until the driver gave permission for the pedestrian to cross. All of these laws were for pedestrians at crosswalks.

The motorists is creating the unsafe condition (even when they are legally on the road), why not go after the motorist? Why should other transportation modes have to placate the motorists who is creating the danger?

+1.

And why should a pedestrian be crossing a highway? Because there's very often nowhere else to cross the road. Not even if you walk for miles. I wouldn't want to put myself (read: live) in a place where I had to do that regularly, but I also wouldn't hesitate to cross a highway on foot if I felt I could do it safely. It may be illegal, but I'd be lying to you if I told you I'd walk far out of the way in such a case.

The root cause of all of these problems is the near total catering to the personal auto since WWII. And the near total lack of enforcement of any kind of discipline for those autos - for example, how driving well over speed limits is now widely accepted. And while I'm at it, I'm sick of hearing about how cyclists don't pay for their share. It's total nonsense.

I don't fret over this issue too much though, because Peak Oil will fix all of this. I'm confident that our current campaign to sustain the unsustainable (driving everywhere and suburbia generally) will prove to be very temporary.

Everything you say is arguably true. However swimming in rivers filled with alligators is natures way of thinning the herd.

As I see it... a pedestrian crossing the highway without lights or signals will likely get killed.

A pedestrian carrying a light across a highway will likely kill more people due to the efforts of drivers trying to swerve, brake, or otherwise avoid the pedestrian. On busy highways there will be dozens of cars involved.

Mr Senator, You make it sound like it's almost not possible for a ped to cross a highway without getting hit or "causing" a wreck. I disagree. Just like when driving a car, you only have to pay attention to the situation and you won't crash or get hit.

Mr Senator, You make it sound like it's almost not possible for a ped to cross a highway without getting hit or "causing" a wreck. I disagree. Just like when driving a car, you only have to pay attention to the situation and you won't crash or get hit.

Of course it's possible. It's also possible and fairly common to bowl a perfect 300.

Of course it's possible. It's also possible and fairly common to bowl a perfect 300.

My dad's done it.

Wonderful! How is he at Frogger?


My dad's done it.

Mr Senator, You make it sound like it's almost not possible for a ped to cross a highway without getting hit or "causing" a wreck. I disagree. Just like when driving a car, you only have to pay attention to the situation and you won't crash or get hit.

Absolutely. Unless we're talking about an urban expressway with extremely fast and dense traffic, or a pedestrian with a physical/mental handicap, there's no need to prepare a Darwin Award here. My feet, accompanied by my eyes, ears, and brain, will cross any highway they darn well please.

On high speed roadways, pedestrians wishing to cross mid-block should yield to vehicle traffic. The road should be designed with ample sight lines and refuge locations to facilitate this.

At intersection locations and on lower speed roads in built-up locations, drivers should be prepared to yield to pedestrians. Speed limits, street lighting and other design features should be engineered to facilitate this.

Wonderful! How is he at Frogger?

not as good as this guy: http://kotaku.com/5439897/george-costanzas-frogger-record-shattered

On high speed roadways, pedestrians wishing to cross mid-block should yield to vehicle traffic.

Definitely. And even at intersections where a pedestrian has right-of-way, one should be prepared to yield until motorists clearly indicate that they will yield to that ROW.

Definitely. And even at intersections where a pedestrian has right-of-way, one should be prepared to yield until motorists clearly indicate that they will yield to that ROW.

This is good defensive advice, but impractical for some lawful pedestrians such as blind people, who proceed slowly when signals and sounds indicate it is time for them to go.

I suggest that sighted people place their foot in the crosswalk when traffic is far enough away to reasonably yield to them safely and in time, and if those road users do not yield, report the license plate, car and driver description to the police.

Let's wrangle all those spitters and litterers as well.

While we are at it... J-walking should also be reported. And for fairness, let's find all of us cyclists that don't do all of the things we are supposed too.

We can have the police running ragged!:twitchy:


(or, everyone can simply use their heads and not make any dumb moves)

On high speed roadways, pedestrians wishing to cross mid-block should yield to vehicle traffic. The road should be designed with ample sight lines and refuge locations to facilitate this.
I prefer to cross at mid block, as I only have to watch for traffic in 2 directions. I hate intersections with large radius corners as it increases the crossing distance and the speed of turning vehicles

I prefer to cross at mid block, as I only have to watch for traffic in 2 directions. I hate intersections with large radius corners as it increases the crossing distance and the speed of turning vehicles

I agree; for years traffic engineers working in suburbs have wrongly argued that pedestrians should be encouraged to cross at intersections and not mid block, when in fact mid-block locations with refuge islands between the two directions of traffic can be far safer places for sighted pedestrians to cross, especially with the additional lanes and movements the engineers have created at the intersections.

The challenge is that pedestrians should generally yield to vehicles mid-block, waiting for gaps, whereas at intersections, drivers must be expected and encouraged to yield to pedestrians since gaps are often insufficient and the pedestrians will otherwise run out of signal time to cross.

The complexity of intersection movements that face pedestrians is the main reason why cyclists fare better when acting as drivers at intersections. At mid-block locations, a cyclist crossing the roadway may decide to dismount in order to take advantage of pedestrian refuges and cross raised medians that block other vehicular traffic but allow safer pedestrian crossing.

ADA compliant median refuges are ideal for mid-block crossings. Upon my suggestion, Cary installed some of these on Evans Road near its intersection with my street, Silvergrove Drive. There is no crosswalk, but the median refuge island and the sidewalks feature ramps and enough storage for a bicycle. I use it when pushing a jogging stroller; on the bike I can cross the entire roadway at the intersections without issue.

Let's wrangle all those spitters and litterers as well.

The litterers I can agree with, if the spitters are spitting into the streets or grass then leave 'em alone.


While we are at it... J-walking should also be reported. And for fairness, let's find all of us cyclists that don't do all of the things we are supposed too.

No argument there.


We can have the police running ragged!:twitchy:

Doing their job shouldn't result in the police being run ragged.


(or, everyone can simply use their heads and not make any dumb moves)

Sadly I think we've all seen all to often that this isn't true. :-(

I just saw a Carmax commercial where they were saying that smart/not smart. According to the commercial in Ks pedestrians have to wear taillights when crossing the highway. I have to say that actually I think that that is a smart idea. As we all know that pedestrians can be very hard to see at night.A taillight is only reliably visible to those behind you. If you're crossing a road on foot, the traffic you're mostly worried about is to your side. So you should also have side lights. And a headlight, just in case.

But yes, if people had these four lights (and/or bright, reflective clothing), it would probably would increase their chances of survival when they crossed a busy highway. But as far as Carmax goes, buying a car from them is smart. Everything else is not smart.

Definitely. And even at intersections where a pedestrian has right-of-way, one should be prepared to yield until motorists clearly indicate that they will yield to that ROW.

So your saying that if a person is not driving an automobile, they are somehow not worthy of having any rights?

I think the point of the initial item has to do with visibility. I have long wondered why, winter jackets and coats are almost all made of dark material, when they are intended to be used at a time of the year when it's often dark before 5 in the afternoon until after 8 in the morning, this makes for the ninja pedestrian. I would not be hard to add a couple of stripes of retro-reflective material to those jackets and coats, so that if worn while walking, and a driver's headlights hits the material. it lights up. I think it's often because the fashion designers don't actually think anyone does walk, that people are chauffeured around in automobiles all the time, so the chance of someone actually walking on the street, whether along the edge or crossing it, does not occur.

Hawaii . . . stop at the corner and hold a leg out at 45 degrees, make eye contact with the driver . . .

This is pretty traditional street walker practice on the mainland as well.

This is pretty traditional street walker practice on the mainland as well.

Aye, it's how you cut people off when you're on foot.

I'd say HI should have changed the law to make killing a ped with your car a capital crime, but that's just me.

So your saying that if a person is not driving an automobile, they are somehow not worthy of having any rights?.

Absolutely not. I'm saying that the person with the most to lose in a collision needs to proceed in a defensive manner, for example not assuming that a driver with adequate reaction time will stop for a pedestrian with right-of-way in a crosswalk. Around here, that will get you killed in short order.

It's interesting to note how driver behavior at crosswalks improves when I raise my 5 foot hiking staff and make it clear to them that they'll need to make a trip to the auto body shop if they don't stop. Helps level the playing field a bit. Kind of a sad commentary on human nature, though.

A taillight is only reliably visible to those behind you. If you're crossing a road on foot, the traffic you're mostly worried about is to your side. So you should also have side lights. And a headlight, just in case.

But yes, if people had these four lights (and/or bright, reflective clothing), it would probably would increase their chances of survival when they crossed a busy highway. But as far as Carmax goes, buying a car from them is smart. Everything else is not smart.

Side, front and rear lights? Agree completely. They should also be required to have a deformable metal frame round them, perhaps with personal airbags when sufficiently developed. To enable them to take the weight, perhaps they could be equipped with supporting wheels at each corner, a bit like the kind of strollers used by the elderly. Unless the defensive framework is made of carbon fibre, it might also assist if there is an electric motor in each wheel, or perhaps a small central gasoline engine driving all 4 wheels (in case of snow).

It occurs to me that, if the motors are powerful enough, perhaps the pedestrian could sit in some kind of sling or saddle. Perhaps de luxe versions could also have some kind of weather protection attached to the frame, including movable transparent materials at the side to enable the pedestrian to signal his/her directional intentions.

Alternatively, such pedestrians should make sure they are constructed of opaque materials, so that they can be seen.

why would pedestrians be crossing a highway?

To get to the other side?

Absolutely not. I'm saying that the person with the most to lose in a collision needs to proceed in a defensive manner, for example not assuming that a driver with adequate reaction time will stop for a pedestrian with right-of-way in a crosswalk. Around here, that will get you killed in short order.

It's interesting to note how driver behavior at crosswalks improves when I raise my 5 foot hiking staff and make it clear to them that they'll need to make a trip to the auto body shop if they don't stop. Helps level the playing field a bit. Kind of a sad commentary on human nature, though.

Crosswalks are usually at intersections, and there is typically some form of control at that intersection, if I come to an intersection and have the right of way, then obviously a car approaching is at some form of control, traffic light, stop sign, etc. Waiting timidly at the intersection, for all car traffic to make sure they have cleared, simply will confuse them as to what they are supposed to do. It's bad enough that half of drivers don't know what to do at an all way stop.