Negative effects of poor traffic signal synchronization

[mwilbert]

And whether there aren't as many pedestrians at 11:30P as 11:30A also is irrelevant. It's still a hazard to the pedestrians who do have to cross or walk along Livernois at 11:30P.

This doesn't seem convincing. The density of pedestrians and cars in the middle of the night is well below any threshold where you would install a signal. The signals are only there because of the traffic at other times of day; that doesn't create a compelling argument that they are needed at night.

In my experience, the lights don't do much for pedestrians at low-traffic volume times anyway. Most pedestrians don't wait for the lights to cross at those times, because most people don't have any problem avoiding the occasional car. You could make the lights pedestrian-activated if you wanted to help the less bold and/or less spry ones--for all I know some of them already are.

[iheartthed]

This doesn't seem convincing. The density of pedestrians and cars in the middle of the night is well below any threshold where you would install a signal. The signals are only there because of the traffic at other times of day; that doesn't create a compelling argument that they are needed at night.

In my experience, the lights don't do much for pedestrians at low-traffic volume times anyway. Most pedestrians don't wait for the lights to cross at those times, because most people don't have any problem avoiding the occasional car. You could make the lights pedestrian-activated if you wanted to help the less bold and/or less spry ones--for all I know some of them already are.

It's not about whether a pedestrian waits for a traffic light, or even crosses the street at the intersection. Engineers don't plan solely according to the instructed use of a product. They also plan have to plan for the varying ways that a product can be used, and unfortunately what can go wrong.

A pedestrian who gets hit by a car, whether at a designated crossing or at an poorly lit section of the mid-block, will have a better chance of surviving the accident if the car is going 35 MPH versus 45 MPH. Timing traffic lights to have drivers not stop encourages 1) the driver to drive at the fastest speed that s/he can without being stopped by a traffic light and 2) not be in the mindset to react as quickly to an obstruction in the road as if s/he had to stop/slow at regular intervals. I don't think whatever minimal benefits of changing the timing is worth the potential downside [[and that worst case scenario only has to happen once for it to not be worth it at all). If you want to avoid traffic lights, that's what freeways are for...

[mkhopper]

A pedestrian who gets hit by a car, whether at a designated crossing or at an poorly lit section of the mid-block, will have a better chance of surviving the accident if the car is going 35 MPH versus 45 MPH. Timing traffic lights to have drivers not stop encourages 1) the driver to drive at the fastest speed that s/he can without being stopped by a traffic light and 2) not be in the mindset to react as quickly to an obstruction in the road as if s/he had to stop/slow at regular intervals. I don't think whatever minimal benefits of changing the timing is worth the potential downside [[and that worst case scenario only has to happen once for it to not be worth it at all). If you want to avoid traffic lights, that's what freeways are for...

I drive Warren every day through Detroit now, and at times I also drive Joy, and for the longest time I'd always be frustrated with having to stop every quarter mile until I came to the conclusion you have.

So many people just amble into the street, whether at a corner or not [[which is a conversation for another time) and if the lights were timed so you didn't have to stop or at least slow down, eventually you'd just drive through the area on auto-pilot and wouldn't be quick enough to respond to something causing you to have to slow down or stop.