Pedestrian crossing app for people with disabilities

[jcpren]

Trial in Edinburgh:
BBC News

[OLD GIT]

Seen the proposed, but WHY do we need this. I have mobility problems, but before this, I realised that on a crossing ,some folks could have problems getting across as the "average" time allotted was not enough. I'd just hold back and let them cross, in the hope that one day I'd meet someone with consideration . Apps for folks with disabilities- WE DON'T NEED. WHAT WE NEED is drivers with consideration and compassion. For example- on a wet day, I see a ped waiting to cross to a more sheltered place. I'm in a nice dry car, so it costs me nothing to let Ped cross. Time we drivers thought on those lines.

[Mark Hewitt]

I've never encountered anything so ridiculous. Have we really surrendered that much to the motor car that someone in a wheelchair needs to load up an app to cross the road?! At some point you need to say, stop, too far.

[michael769]

Oh dear.

All it does is press the button for the user, potentially useful for folks who have issues operating the button directly. I can see it being a boon for folks with severe upper limb disorders, or those immobile below the neck, who are currently incapable of operating the button at all without help.

Anything that offers folks with more severe disabilities greater independence is a good thing IMO.

But I can also foresee enterprising teenagers using this to operate crossings from nearby....

[Gareth]

Updating our traffic signals to include a locator tone in the push button might be useful. Our current system is way out of date, which you appreciate when going to many other developed countries.

[scynthius726]

It's nothing to do with the time given to cross; all it does is simulate a button press (probably by inserting a Ped Demand bit to the UTC system). Good idea, although in most of the examples given, the reason they're having difficulty finding the button is poor crossing design more than anything else.

I'd be interested to see how the app could be extended beyond standalone pedestrian crossings. Junctions with all-round pedestrian facilities would be easy, and staggered crossings at dual carriageways would be do-able (I would suggest the use of the Scottish-style spoken audibles, e.g. "Traffic coming from / going to the Whirlies has been signalled to stop"). The challenge would come at complicated junctions with many walk-with-traffic pedestrian phases - just how would you communicate succinctly to a blind or visually impaired person that some pedestrian phases are at green and others are at red?

[Reading]

BBC article on length of green man phase - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41010020

[M4 Cardiff]

I thought that the law was that even if the lights turn back to road traffic priority, if someone is already on the crossing, you have to wait for them to finish so with the exception of those who would probably break the law anyway, why would it be needed? I would however object to wholesale increasing the crossing time, because even 'so called' smart systems don't always revert quickly if the crossing is used quickly, and they don't abandon the pedestrian phase if the pedestrians have either crossed early or have decided, whilst waiting, to go somewhere else and not cross at all.

And no, I'm not referring to crossings baked into a light controlled junctions where pedestrian phases are automatically given to some arms at certain times, or the phases are tied into other light controlled junctions for general traffic flow reasons.

[ianwallis]

BBC article on length of green man phase - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41010020

And as usual the reason the green man exists is totally ignored. It is only there to tell you when it is safe to start to cross the road, it has absolutely no bearing on the length of time to cross the road, that is the purpose of the safety timings which follow the green man. In theory you should be able to step off the footway in the last second of the green man and still have time to cross the road before the vehicles are given a green signal.
What we need, and what PUFFIN facilities give you, is a short green man (so the signals can go quickly back to green for traffic if someone has crossed quickly) with a mechanism for holding the traffic on red while slower moving pedestrians are still crossing. Best of both worlds!

[Mark Hewitt]

I thought that the law was that even if the lights turn back to road traffic priority, if someone is already on the crossing, you have to wait for them to finish so with the exception of those who would probably break the law anyway, why would it be needed? I would however object to wholesale increasing the crossing time, because even 'so called' smart systems don't always revert quickly if the crossing is used quickly, and they don't abandon the pedestrian phase if the pedestrians have either crossed early or have decided, whilst waiting, to go somewhere else and not cross at all.

And no, I'm not referring to crossings baked into a light controlled junctions where pedestrian phases are automatically given to some arms at certain times, or the phases are tied into other light controlled junctions for general traffic flow reasons.

Indeed but the reality is that a significant proportion of drivers will attempt to bully pedestrians off the crossing. Enough to make those who are already suffering with mobility problems not wish to use them.

[novaecosse]

BBC article on length of green man phase - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41010020

Another one appeared today...

Green Man crossings 'too fast' for people with arthritis

[WHBM]

I would however object to wholesale increasing the crossing time

This has however been done progressively on all TfL managed crossings in London.

because even 'so called' smart systems don't always revert quickly if the crossing is used quickly, and they don't abandon the pedestrian phase if the pedestrians have either crossed early ... [/quote} The London ones appear to have never been programmed to do so. Countdowns dealt the death knell to this.