NYC Asks Google Maps For Fewer Left Turns 363
An anonymous reader writes: Members of the New York City Council have sent a letter to Google asking that its Maps navigation system provide users an option to "reduce left turns." Pedestrian safety is the issue they're trying to improve. In the U.S., a quarter of all accidents involving pedestrians happen while a vehicle is making a left turn. "The first cause of death for New York City children under 13 is not gangs, it's not poverty, not violence. It's being hit by cars and trucks. This is the time for the city to reach out to the private sector, so they can help us to provide information to drivers about where you should avoid making left turns." The council members are also asking for an option that would let truckers stay on known truck routes, hoping that would prevent the problems that arise when big-rigs wander onto streets not large enough to safely accommodate them.
Seems Reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Making a request like this seems very reasonable and hopefully Google will be able to improve their service in this regard.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly this seems like perfectly reasonable user feedback concerning a use case that was not considered by the developers. It is the natural process of software development.
The addition fewer left turns may also have a help on traffic for NY. Quite often traffic will pile up in turn lanes on two way streets until the turning traffic blocks the normal lanes. If there are more right turns it could prevent buildup of traffic at red lights.
Also another change worth considering in large cities: have an opti
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly this seems like perfectly reasonable user feedback concerning a use case that was not considered by the developers.
Honestly it seems goddamned retarded that the software doesn't already try to optimize away left turns. Everyone and their mother knows, for example, that UPS does this. They do it to save fuel, but it also improves safety.
Re:Seems Reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
if you ask a geek (Score:4, Funny)
Left turn = three right turns. Three times safer, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't know about safer, but I know a lot of places where trying to make a left hand turn can be a major pain in the ass ... I was at a traffic light not so long ago that had two left turning lanes, with room for about 20 cars in each lane.
The advanced left turn gave enough room for about 3 cars from each lane to get through the intersection before the light changed -- assuming the front-most car stomped on it as soon as the light changed. Which left a lot of cars still not through the intersection.
Don't kn
Three rights don't always make a practical left (Score:2)
In an area with a regular grid of city blocks, such as Manhattan, one can make three right turns. But this becomes impractical in parts of cities where most junctions are T-style.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect what the city wants is something like choosing between these two routes:
1) Proceed one block west to Main and turn right, go two blocks and turn left onto Third
2) Proceed two blocks west to Oak Street and turn right, go two blocks and turn right onto Third.
Think about it; same number of turns, you end up in the same place. But #2 trades driving an extra half block to eliminate the left turn. If I know the streets I often make that choice myself, especially if I know the destination will be another
Re:if you ask a geek (Score:4, Informative)
Left turn = three right turns. Three times safer, right?
If you ask a statistician you'll discover that it's not only safer, but it's also more efficient because less time is spend making complete stops and idling at lights. This is why UPS minimizes left turns.
Fewer left turns? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you think a left turn causes carnage, just imagine what driving on the wrong side of the read altogether does.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong side of the read? Ask Japan, their books go backwards compared to us.
Re: (Score:2)
And why might that be, for the benefit of the rest of us?
Re: (Score:3)
In that case, feel free to respond to a cultural translation: "Dublin Asks Google Maps For Fewer Right Turns"
(Generated from template: "$large_city Asks Google Maps For Fewer $driving_opposite_side Turns")
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, feel free to respond to a cultural translation: "Dublin Asks Google Maps For Fewer Right Turns"
Surely, it should be "Dublin asks Google Maps for 'I were you, I wouldn't start from here' option."
It works for UPS. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://compass.ups.com/UPS-dri... [ups.com]
.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it also reduces fuel consumption and saves time http://compass.ups.com/UPS-dri... [ups.com] .
Yep. I try to avoid running errands until I absolutely have to. When I finally go, I always map out my trip in my mind based on avoiding left turns. Only if things have to be done in a specific order do I prioritize a stop that increases the number of left turns./P.
Re:It works for UPS. (Score:5, Insightful)
UPS has the advantage that they don't want to go to a specific target, but drive past multiple targets. It's quite likely that they don't substitude 3 right turns for each left turn they eliminate, but significantly less on average.
NASCAR (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Onion video (one of their best);
http://www.theonion.com/video/... [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Still doesn't beat http://www.theonion.com/video/... [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Truckers" should use commercial solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Truckers shouldn't use google maps anyway - they don't provide legal truck routes. There are other applications out there like ALK PC Miler that provides truck routes based on verified truck routes, height and weight limits, etc.
I'm not sure that Google wants to get into that game, at least not providing a free product.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually Yes they do, there is a setting for Class A trucks with height & weight restrictions restrictions
Just do a "google maps class A truck setting", BAM! ... there is your recalculated route
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, the very first car route planning software I used had options to select your vehicle type. Pedestrian, bicycle, passenger car, passenger car with trailer, or truck. It would give different results for different vehicles. You could even fine tune your preferences for say motorways over secondary roads, by giving them a preference score. Tell it to avoid toll roads, or to avoid ferry crossings.
None of these options are present in Google Maps.
The application I'm talking about is from an era that
Why don't apps learn? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are certain roads I prefer to take and others I prefer to avoid, certain maneuvers I prefer to make and others I dislike. Example: especially if I'm navigating someplace unfamiliar, I'd much rather take the "least complicated" route that involves the fewest turns, especially if the time saving is less than 15 minutes.
Google Maps tracks this, both if I'm putting together the route on the computer (for printing out and taking with me) or if I'm actually navigating. And yet its suggested directions never change. It seems like there'd be MORE than enough data accumulated in a relatively small number of drives for GMaps (or Waze, is after all owned by Google, or whatever) to notice "Ah, this person hates taking non-protected left turns," or, "this person will not take the beltway for any more than a half-hour's time savings," and to adjust the directions it gives accordingly. They personalize search results. Why not directions?
Re:Why don't apps learn? (Score:5, Funny)
They personalize search results. Why not directions?
They're too busy figuring out the next way to shit up the maps interface with more idiotic changes.
I've seen it change... (Score:3)
I have seen routes evolve on Google Maps - i.e. where it started to learn side roads and other shortcuts.
Granted, the two examples I can think of changed over a period of at least a year, and might not be as noticeable as after you've driven a route a few times, you might not be using Google Maps the next time you drive it.
Also, there's the "a faster route has become available" which will pop up, mostly due to reported accidents and changing traffic patterns.
One seems reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
The request for right turn optimized routes seems reasonable, but the truck route seems stupid to me. If you're operating a large truck you should be using truck optimized commercial software, not freaking Google Maps. There are all sorts of things like bridge height, earlier lane alignment alerts (it takes a LOT longer to get an opening big enough for a big rig), hazmat restrictions, etc that the commercial packages take into account that google maps is unlikely to ever add so giving a truck route option seems like it would give drivers a false sense that google maps is an acceptable alternative to what they should really be using.
Big truck != Big company (Score:2)
If you're operating a large truck you should be using truck optimized commercial software, not freaking Google Maps.
Operating a large truck != Working for a large company. Plenty of trucks are small or solo operations with very small budgets. Google Maps is about as sophisticated as these operations are going to get. Many trucks that deliver to us don't have a GPS or navigation aid of any description.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, you can buy a six figure truck, but $300 [walmart.com] is too much to spend to have appropriate mapping?!? That's a complete BS excuse. Heck, I imagine one fine for having a truck on a route that doesn't allow them is enough to pay for the unit. Also I bet the fuel price search could save more in a month than the unit costs.
Re: (Score:2)
And by the same token, I've seen a few examples of where someone was clearly using a cheap consumer GPS instead of one designed to actually deal with trucks.
And then you get a large truck on a road (or bridge) not rated for it, and in which it can't move.
My in-laws routinely see semi trucks trying to go down their small dirt road, because something is telling them to take turns no sane person would take those trucks on -- there's even big signs saying "No Trucks except local delivery".
Lack of willingness to
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I would like to see using a satellite navigation system on a truck/lorry/HGV that is not designed for such purposes as an offence that will attract points on the license of the driver.
Then when they go down some inappropriate road and get stuck it is an automatic fine.
My personal favourite of stupid truck/HGV drivers is this incident in York (that's the historic city of York in England nothing to do with the interloper New York)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e... [bbc.co.uk]
As a motorcyclist... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a motorcyclist, I avoid left turns like the plague.
Not for safety reasons, but because I don't want to sit there for 15 minutes waiting for a car that weighs enough to pull up behind me to trigger the lights to turn green.
We waste so much of our lives waiting at red lights its baffling!
</semi-tangent>
Two tips for dead reds (Score:2)
I'm a bicyclist, and I have two tips that may help. First, it's not weight as much as metal surface area. So if you can see the crack in the road where the induction loop is buried, try making a chord [wikipedia.org] with your bike, placing both wheels directly over the loop.
The second tip is a bit of argumentum ad nauseam. Every time you have to wait at least five minutes, report the offending intersection to the city. If on or crossing a state highway, also report it to the state. If they're anything like Indiana, they'l
Re: (Score:2)
Not for safety reasons, but because I don't want to sit there for 15 minutes waiting for a car that weighs enough to pull up behind me to trigger the lights to turn green.
They're not scales, dude. They're metal detectors. Stop sitting right in the middle of the lane, where you shouldn't be anyway, and park over the detector.
Re: (Score:3)
Not for safety reasons, but because I don't want to sit there for 15 minutes waiting for a car that weighs enough to pull up behind me to trigger the lights to turn green.
20 or 30 years ago I asked a cop in Australia about what should I do when the lights don't respond to a motorcycle. His reply was that if you are sitting there for so long then you can consider the light to be defective and you can proceed with caution. However this was before the widespread introduction of red light cameras and I never put it to the test.
Re: (Score:2)
That's when you activate your "James Bond" plate changer or hiding system to either change your plate number or temporarily obscure it from said cameras.
The solution... (Score:4, Funny)
Why do this? (Score:3)
Could someone explain for the non-Americans why it is possible to have cars turning left at a green light, at the same time as pedestrians crossing the road have a green light? What was the thinking behind this? And why is the solution not just to stop this happening?
Re: (Score:2)
Left turn yield on green (Score:3)
Under the United States MUTCD, a turn facing a green arrow is a "protected" left turn. Pedestrians have a "don't cross" signal during this phase. A turn facing a green disk is considered a "permitted" left turn, where oncoming traffic has the right of way. As with a yield sign, it is permitted to enter the intersection and to proceed through it once vehicular and pedestrian traffic have cleared. Some cities are experimenting with using a flashing yellow arrow instead of a green disk for a permitted left tur
How it works in the US (Score:3)
Could someone explain for the non-Americans why it is possible to have cars turning left at a green light, at the same time as pedestrians crossing the road have a green light?
First, because there is nothing to physically prevent pedestrians from crossing the road at any time, even when it is inadvisable to do so or when signs even directly instruct the pedestrians not to cross.
Second, the general rule in most parts of the US is that pedestrians cross in the same direction as the traffic flow. That's how the cross-walk signals are programmed. Not all cross walks have crossing signals either though they are rather common. The vehicle traffic is always moving because stopping it
They're not always like this (Score:2)
Some lights have separate segments where it's only straight or only left-turn. Pedestrians only have the walk sign during the straight traffic.
As for all others (or pretty much any situation) pedestrians have right-of-way. Seems that's true even if they're jaywalking, crossing against the light, riding a bike across the crosswalk, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost impossible to drive across London though. New York City traffic is not great, but you at least get where you need to go.
I don't think that's because of the traffic lights. I think that's because of road layouts dictated by stone-age goat-tracks, mediaeval land disputes, rivers that aren't there any more and WWII ending before the Germans had time to build enough V2s. And London's nothing compared to some other European cities.
OTOH, central London's small enough to walk across.
Better yet... (Score:5, Funny)
NYC should just ask Google to track children in real-time and let drivers know when one is nearby. And especially flag the ones who aren't being watched by an adult; they're way more likely to play in traffic.
Pervasive surveillance... it's for the children!
numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
1/4 left, 1/4 right, 1/4 forward and 1/4 backwards....
the backwards really has me intrigued.
Pedestrian cycle! (Score:3)
We could add a pedestrian cycle to all stop lights which halts all traffic and lets people walk in all four directions at once. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Bring back the Barnes Dance!
http://www.citylab.com/commute... [citylab.com]
What's wrong with a sign? (Score:2)
How about just adding some "No Left Turn" signs on streets where the city is concerned about the problem? I don't see why this should be Google's problem and I doubt they'll see a lot of voluntary usage even if it were available.
Put your money where your mouth is! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How dumb would you have to be to offer to pay for something before seeing if it would be done for free first?
Stop traffic when letting pedestrians cross (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in the UK. Here, traffic is stopped entirely across the intersection and pedestrians are allowed to use all the crossings. There's no crossing when any side of the intersection has a green light for cars.
After living in the UK for so long, I went to visit a friend in Germany and it took me by surprise when after making a left turn there was a pedestrian crossing the road... and he had a green light too.
I find the idea of letting both traffic and pedestrians on the road at the same time stupid and irresponsible.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no crossing when any side of the intersection has a green light for cars.
Well, there can be, since we don't criminalise the act of crossing the road without explicit permission from a roadside signal. It's anarchy, I tell you!
Left turn signals (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If the driver has a green ARROW, then pedestrians do not have the right of way (and shouldn't have a walk sign). Green arrows are protected turns.
Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right (Score:3)
How about teaching pedestrians the rules? (Score:2)
So, Zoolander... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Waiting for that first "Nanny state" comment... (Score:5, Funny)
BTW, did you notice this story is literally NYC asking Google Maps to have a leftward bias?
No, but I did notice the exact opposite of that.
Re:Waiting for that first "Nanny state" comment... (Score:5, Funny)
In Germany to go left, you take the *Third Right*
What happened to Common Sense? (Score:4, Insightful)
What happened to parents teaching their kids basic safety, and the old adage about "Looking both ways before crossing the street"?
Seriously...do parents not teach kids the basic things about life? Don't talk to strangers, look both ways, cross street at intersections, etc.
I guess I'm just puzzled why what used to be common sense has suddenly gone straight out the fucking window?
Re:What happened to Common Sense? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes you look both ways and it is clear and while crossing the street someone still zooms through on a left turn and nearly hits you.
I have nearly been hit a few times while crossing the street by careless drivers that drove through an intersection FAR too fast. This is all while paying attention to my surroundings.
For a child they are smaller and even more likely to get hit.
I can't wait for the day when humans are no longer permitted to drive.
Re:What happened to Common Sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What happened to Common Sense? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pedestrians have the right of way, which is true. But that doesn't mean they can slip into blissful ignorance, step off the curb into traffic and have a reasonable expectation that the car that is turning left will see them in time to stop. With your right comes some responsibility. Far too often I see pedestrians step into the crosswalk in such a way as to make it all but impossible for the left turning car to safely stop. Whereupon, they flip the driver a bird. That is assuming they even bother to acknowledge the herculean effort the driver put in to avoid their dumb ass.
Asking Google to modify the code to reduce the number of suggested left turns is one way to MAYBE alter the outcome. An additional step would be to put some effort into a PSA campaign that tells pedestrians to watch where the hell they are going and stop behaving like they are entitled before they even step into the street.
The fact that some pedestrians act "entitled" does not change the fact that cars regularly hit pedestrians that are following the law and are crossing with a walk sign. Why is this so hard to understand? Cars in many cities can turn left at a green light where pedestrians are crossing. The car, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, sees an opening in oncoming traffic and punches it without looking for pedestrians. This happens all the time. I saw it happen this weekend.
Re:What happened to Common Sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Pedestrians have the right of way, which is true.
> Far too often I see pedestrians step into the crosswalk in such a way as to make it all but impossible for the left turning car to safely stop.
I think you fail to understand the concept of right of way. If you are going too fast to safely stop, you are going too fast.
Re:What happened to Common Sense? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're supposed to cross at an intersection if possible, and if not, at least where you have a clear line of sight in both directions. You're also supposed to wait until it's safe to cross. If you can't see if it's safe to cross, you're doing it wrong.
Translation: Never ever cross the street in New York City.
Re: (Score:3)
I"m guessing you've never owned a car that is fun to drive...?
You're missing out in life. The roar of a powerful engine, shifting....etc.
Capitalists say "the kool-aid is working great, isn't it? Get them to worship REALLY expensive useless stuff!"
Re:What happened to Common Sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you walk much in big cities and use crosswalks?
Because in all honesty, I see a tremendous amount of drivers who don't even look for pedestrians and just race through the intersection. I've been crossing on a light and had some asshole turn right on red practically run me over, and I know damned well people actually do get run over.
And some of these drivers are then yelling at the pedestrian for being in the way, because they're too stupid to realize just who is in whose way.
Maybe the problem isn't about teaching children common sense, but in realizing that many drivers are practically homicidal in the way they drive a car.
Because, I'm sorry ... but if I'm crossing a cross-walk on a walk signal, and you're turning right on red through the crosswalk, it's not ME who is at fault.
You can look all you want, but when drivers don't seem to be aware of (or care about) pedestrians, that's the real damned problem.
A tremendous amount of people turn into assholes and morons when they get behind the wheel.
Re:What happened to Common Sense? (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm. How about teaching kids to do the simple, sane thing and Watch Where The Fuck they are going...??
What happened to parents teaching their kids basic safety, and the old adage about "Looking both ways before crossing the street"?
Seriously...do parents not teach kids the basic things about life? Don't talk to strangers, look both ways, cross street at intersections, etc.
I guess I'm just puzzled why what used to be common sense has suddenly gone straight out the fucking window?
Seriously? Pedestrians crossing the street with a walk sign get hit by someone making a left hand turn and you blame the pedestrian? The issue is the driver making the left is mostly focussed on oncoming traffic. As soon as they see an opening in oncoming traffic, they gun it with out checking if the crosswalk is clear. We can "blame" the victim like you are. We can blame and punish the driver. Or we can admit there are limits to human focus and do something to improve the situation.
Clearly you don't walk, ride a bicycle, or a motorcycle on a regular basis or you would be aware that people in cars regularly change lanes, run red lights and make turns without noticing anything smaller than a passenger car.
Re:What happened to Common Sense? (Score:4, Informative)
As an NYC-specific fact: right turn on red is explicitly illegal within city limits.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm gonna go out on a limb here but I suspect the idea of changing the algorithm to introduce more right turns to eliminate some left turns never occurred to you. But once you read the above story you were all like "oh yeah, that makes sense, what harm can come from that, what would it cost, oh man it might actually save money and time and lives andandand...
Meanwhile, thankfully, there will be people that are accustomed to giving thought to long term ramifications and unintended consequences. Hence the phrase, cooler heads will prevail. Start looking at the problem from a logical point of view and less from your heart and you too might realize that education and personal responsibility may not be the best or only solution to the problem but are a better long term solution than having 4 million drivers making more right turns.
Or, you might find, that making more right turns works out better for everyone. UPS minimizes left turns because it saves fuel even though it may increase the length of the route. But gravity forbid we look into alternatives to telling the victim of an accident "suck it up and take responsibility". A pedestrian can cross with a walk sign and some asshole stopped at a green light can see an opening in traffic and then make the turn without looking. This is the situation that they are trying to improve. T
Re: (Score:2)
It's Political Correctness gone mad!
BTW, did you notice this story is literally NYC asking Google Maps to have a leftward bias?
Because they say "three rights equal a left"? Or isn't it the exact opposite: more turns to the right?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they say "three rights equal a left"? Or isn't it the exact opposite: more turns to the right?
Sometimes a left turn earlier in the process will eliminate several later on. It might cost you more time, but at peak traffic times, it might also save you time — or at least cost you little time while significantly increasing traffic safety for everyone around you — and also improving trip times for everyone else because you're not holding anyone up while trying to make a left in an annoying location, where it's not protected and with its own lane for example.
Of course, you can't lay all the b
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, Ellen Pao and Obama are video games?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
... because, of course, a city writing a letter asking a company to do something is exactly the same as requiring it - at least in the eyes of certain slashdot political pundits. I expect this comment will be moderated down "troll" or "flamebait" by the same members of slashdot's conservative majority that will be up-moderating "insightful" the first nanny state comment.
So you're getting outraged by as-yet-unexpressed but anticipated outrage? How proleptic of you.
Re:Waiting for that first "Nanny state" comment... (Score:4, Insightful)
I fail to see how anyone could construe offering an additional option, rather than constraining people to that option, is acting like a nanny state. Most especially since it's simply a friendly request, not a law, so it's up to google to decide if the feature offers value to their customers or not.
Heck, I'd expect the right wing to be all over this as an example of how private companies and government can work together for mutual advancement.
Re:or... (Score:5, Insightful)
they could just put up "no left turn" signs
It takes money to order and install such signs. Then those requirements impede profit later on, as well. That plan won't fly. Instead they spent a few days' worth of city council time writing a letter to ask someone else to provide an optional work-around.
Re:or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes a left turn is necessary. Having Google maps put a higher cost in the algorithm for left turns, the system can then determine better if a left turn should be made or three rights. It isn't about eliminating them entirely (as it isn't practical to do so), it is about reducing.
Re:or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, that's not the fundamental issue... which is:
The turning driver has a green light right when pedestrians have the walk light
When your city can reasonably be ranked as the top pedestrian city in the world [list25.com], it might behoove you to plan accordingly by not putting your pedestrians directly into oncoming traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
That list shows 17 out of 25 of the world's top pedestrian cities as being in of the US, 2 of those outside being in Canada. That leaves 6 for the rest of the world.
I'm not usually one to complain about lists and articles being US-centric, but that is a little absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
Lastly, it tends to be faster than my garmin at recalculating (and more precise) but my garmin is l
Re: (Score:3)
they could just put up "no left turn" signs
That wold be fine, if Google cared. Hey, they fixed the "turn left" where there's a "no left turn" they send me the last time - but the U-turn they want me to do on the next intersection where there's a "no U-turn" sign is hardly better. At least in Germany Google Maps' database is still lousy.
Re: (Score:3)
they could just put up "no left turn" signs
...which would snarl NYC traffic way worse than it already is. It's one thing to have a nav app work out a no-left-turn route for you, but are we going to expect to just know how to do so on their own?
Getting some priorities (Score:2)
It's called getting some priorities. Traffic fatalities outnumber peacetime firearm fatalities.
Re: (Score:2)
Peacetime? The U.S.A. has been implicated in wars all over the world for over half a century.
Re: (Score:2)
Number two on the list is accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod this one up! The problem in some cities, though, is space at intersections.
Re: (Score:2)
All intersections could be replaced with roundabouts.
Which are fine up to a certain traffic volume and then lock solid. In the UK, more and more major roundabouts are being fitted with traffic lights.
How did the Dutch do it in Amsterdam would be the question to ponder next, I reckon.
Simple: most of the locals ride bikes, most of the tourists go by boat, plus they have something called "public transport".
In the Netherlands, some of the cycle tracks have car lanes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a supremely good idea. Left turns from/to two-way streets are difficult and disruptive in New York City.
Except... don't pedestrians fall under threat from right turns, too?
Assuming the analysis has been done correctly, the statistics show that left turns are significantly more dangerous. My completely un-researched (other than by walking and driving in cities) guesses as to why is that drivers attempting to dart through oncoming traffic are not paying any attention to anything else, and are partially hidden from pedestrians by that traffic (and vice-versa). They also have more time to accelerate before impact, and possibly are more motivated (by oncoming traffic) to accelerat
Re: (Score:2)
That's a supremely good idea. Left turns from/to two-way streets are difficult and disruptive in New York City.
Except... don't pedestrians fall under threat from right turns, too?
Short answer: when drivers finally find a gap in oncoming traffic while turning left, they are likely to be much faster at the pedestrian traffic than when doing a right turn.
Long answer [nyc.gov] - TLDR: accidents with pedestrians are >3 times as likely on left turns as on right turns.
Re: (Score:2)
i'm assuming most accidents aren't fatal. 20 people dead, 200 injured would be less acceptable for instance.
Lease them (Score:2)
When we discussed the medallions system in a previous article from 2014, presumably one about Uber, someone mentioned that because taxis occupy space on the road, this space should be treated as "curbside real estate". We ended up concluding that the problem is not with taxi medallions and liquor licenses per se as much as allowing them to become objects of price speculation [slashdot.org] and inheritance fights [nypost.com]. The city should have leased them instead of selling them.