Originally Posted by
bipedalconsumer
With regard to button-activated lights, the issue of tourists (and others...) crossing without activating the light would be very hard to address without perhaps some prominent signs and warnings...
Actually, pedestrians ignoring the buttons would be
the goal.
Since the odds are better than even that another party (on foot or on wheels) is going to ignore the light, it's already basically devolved to a situation of look and be careful. As a result the lights fail to serve anyone's interest, because they are either an annoyance if against you, or an absurdly false promise if in your favor.
But putting the lights on buttons not only preserves the possibility that someone mobility challenged who really needs a protected crossing (and is willing to wait for it) could in legal theory get one, if having the lights activate becomes a rarity, then enforcing them becomes much more socially tenable enough that they might
actually get a protected crossing.
(I stop at deserted park lights; it feels downright silly to do so, but it is what they mean. I express my objection mostly by avoiding the park... and for that matter, the street grid, unless I'm in a mood to deal with that.)