It is not literally forcing anyone but it is effectively forcing everyone. Or don’t call it forcing if you want, but it is what people are going to do.
Note that moving a zebra crossing just 200 m means having to walk 400 m more, so 5 minutes walking. For people with reduced mobility it is much longer. [edited to add the ending ‘d’ in reduced]
Good design is not about the theory it is about what happens in practice. Search for, for example, the design failure of Brasilia. Super well designed on plan, a failure in practice. Something similar is repeated once and again.
Or don’t call it forcing if you want, but it is what people are going to do.
Let us be precise: not “people are going to”, but “some additional people on the margin are going to” (cross at a point without a designated pedestrian crossing). Some people do so already (no matter how closely spaced the crossings), and some people will continue to not do so (even if you space the crossings further apart).
This is perfectly normal and expected. People have free will, and if they decide to break the rules, that’s their choice. We may, of course, determine that some threshold amount of rule-breaking indicates that the rule is bad—but the mere fact that some people are breaking the rules, is not sufficient to establish this.
(This is especially true given that the new setup will be more safe than the old one.)
Good design is not about the theory it is about what happens in practice.
This has nothing to do with the theory/practice distinction.
if they decide to break the rules, that’s their choice
The point is that your proposal incentivises people to break the rules and cross unsafely; which is the opposite of what the proposal intends.
On the other hand, having zebra crossing more often incentivises people to use them.
The appropriate question here is what is more unsafe? 1) significant amounts of people crossing in random places, or 2) cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings.
For me, in normal conditions 1) is clearly more unsafe, as car drivers must be paying attention to the traffic anyway. And I’d guess that this is the actual case, otherwise zebra crossings would not have been adopted.
The point is that your proposal incentivises people to break the rules and cross unsafely; which is the opposite of what the proposal intends.
The incentive to break the rules and cross unsafely already exists. One part of my proposal (space crossings further apart) strengthens that incentive. Another part of my proposal (stop signs or traffic lights at each crossing) makes it safer to cross in accordance with the rules.
The reason for the former part is to preserve the usefulness of the roadway for drivers (which would otherwise be reduced by the increase in its safety), while the reason for the latter part is to increase the safety of the roadway for pedestrians.
On net, the roadway becomes safer but less useful for pedestrians, while remaining as useful as previously for drivers. (There is also a matter of safety for drivers, but not a significant one.)
The appropriate question here is what is more unsafe?
It is clear that cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings is more unsafe.
If crossing in random places is dangerous and sanctioned crossings are less frequent, that does not mean that the road is less safe, only that it is less useful. Safety is to be evaluated on the basis of two things: (a) how safe it is to behave in the approved way, and (b) how easy it is to behave in the approved way and avoid behaving in the un-approved way, should one have a general intention to do so. Mere incentives to behave in the un-approved way are not properly understood to be components of safety, only of usefulness.
It is clear that cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings is more unsafe.
Then let’s just get rid of zebra crossings all together. But I highly suspect that this would not be a good solution (eg. in Europe I have never seen a stop sign for a zebra crossing).
It’s an hyperbole, of course —to keep the usefulness of the road, if it is less dangerous that people just cross in random places than that cars stop before zebra crossings, let’s get rid of the crossings.
So, basically forcing people to cross unsafely (and potentially illegally) is the best design choice?
Nobody’s forcing anyone to do anything.
You can walk down to the next crossing. Or, not. This is always true, no matter how many crossings there are.[1]
Unless the crossings are literally abutting one another, i.e. the whole road is one giant pedestrian crossing, i.e. there is no road.
It is not literally forcing anyone but it is effectively forcing everyone. Or don’t call it forcing if you want, but it is what people are going to do.
Note that moving a zebra crossing just 200 m means having to walk 400 m more, so 5 minutes walking. For people with reduced mobility it is much longer. [edited to add the ending ‘d’ in reduced]
Good design is not about the theory it is about what happens in practice. Search for, for example, the design failure of Brasilia. Super well designed on plan, a failure in practice. Something similar is repeated once and again.
Let us be precise: not “people are going to”, but “some additional people on the margin are going to” (cross at a point without a designated pedestrian crossing). Some people do so already (no matter how closely spaced the crossings), and some people will continue to not do so (even if you space the crossings further apart).
This is perfectly normal and expected. People have free will, and if they decide to break the rules, that’s their choice. We may, of course, determine that some threshold amount of rule-breaking indicates that the rule is bad—but the mere fact that some people are breaking the rules, is not sufficient to establish this.
(This is especially true given that the new setup will be more safe than the old one.)
This has nothing to do with the theory/practice distinction.
The point is that your proposal incentivises people to break the rules and cross unsafely; which is the opposite of what the proposal intends.
On the other hand, having zebra crossing more often incentivises people to use them.
The appropriate question here is what is more unsafe? 1) significant amounts of people crossing in random places, or 2) cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings.
For me, in normal conditions 1) is clearly more unsafe, as car drivers must be paying attention to the traffic anyway. And I’d guess that this is the actual case, otherwise zebra crossings would not have been adopted.
The incentive to break the rules and cross unsafely already exists. One part of my proposal (space crossings further apart) strengthens that incentive. Another part of my proposal (stop signs or traffic lights at each crossing) makes it safer to cross in accordance with the rules.
The reason for the former part is to preserve the usefulness of the roadway for drivers (which would otherwise be reduced by the increase in its safety), while the reason for the latter part is to increase the safety of the roadway for pedestrians.
On net, the roadway becomes safer but less useful for pedestrians, while remaining as useful as previously for drivers. (There is also a matter of safety for drivers, but not a significant one.)
It is clear that cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings is more unsafe.
If crossing in random places is dangerous and sanctioned crossings are less frequent, that does not mean that the road is less safe, only that it is less useful. Safety is to be evaluated on the basis of two things: (a) how safe it is to behave in the approved way, and (b) how easy it is to behave in the approved way and avoid behaving in the un-approved way, should one have a general intention to do so. Mere incentives to behave in the un-approved way are not properly understood to be components of safety, only of usefulness.
Then let’s just get rid of zebra crossings all together. But I highly suspect that this would not be a good solution (eg. in Europe I have never seen a stop sign for a zebra crossing).
I don’t see how this follows…?
It’s an hyperbole, of course —to keep the usefulness of the road, if it is less dangerous that people just cross in random places than that cars stop before zebra crossings, let’s get rid of the crossings.
That would reduce the usefulness of the road for pedestrians to zero, which for most roads is too low.
In any case, your antecedent clause there is a mischaracterization of the discussion so far.
On the contrary, they could cross anywhere without needing to walk to the zebra crossing! That would increase the road’s usefulness for them.
But pedestrians can do that already, so your proposed change would not change this; thus there could be no increase.
Now it is illegal in some places and not recommended in others → social & cívic pressure against. Plus the increase in usefulness for the cars.