"No pedestrians" signs at Pennsylvania rural intersections

[Ron Newman]

While driving through rural and suburban parts of Pennsylvania,
I often saw "No pedestrians" signs (not with those words, but rather
a person inside a red-slashed circle) at signallized intersections.
Often for all four crosswalks.

My conclusion upon seeing this is that in Pennsylvania, unlike
any other state I've visited, pedestrians are supposed to
cross *away* from the street corner, somewhere in the middle of
the block, instead of at the traffic light.

Why does Pennsylvania do this?
--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html

[Larry Gould]

My guess is that this is a CYA strategy in response to an efort to save
money.

At these intersections, there was no investment in pedestrian actuator
buttons and the phase lengths are timed in response to vehicle volume
only. If there are not enough vehicles for a certain phase, that phase
may be short or non existent. There is no way to guarantee that a
pedestrian will get a green, or a sufficiently long green. The first
pedestrian to get flattened could sue, saying a facility open to peds
needs to provide safe passage. And they would win. So, PennDOT closes
the intersection to peds, and, if they're lucky, escape liability.

Of course, this is a teribly unfair way to save relatively little money.
And totally hypocritical, since they know that peds will cross anyway.

In
<4b4sds$k...@kalypso.cybercom.net>

[George Jefferson]

:My conclusion upon seeing this is that in Pennsylvania, unlike

:any other state I've visited, pedestrians are supposed to
:cross *away* from the street corner, somewhere in the middle of
:the block, instead of at the traffic light.

no, you are supposed to cross at the next block. "no pedestrians"
intersections are pretty rare, usually only where there is a 'legal'
crossing close by. Everybody ignores pedestrian controls anyway though..

[Ron Newman]

In article <4b6lpv$8...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
George Jefferson <geo...@mech.seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

I saw them all over Pennsylvania, often way out in the sticks where
there was no real notion of a "next block".

[Colin R. Leech]

TRHickey (trhi...@aol.com) writes:
> It's a scam foisted on the public by some shyster state lawyers.
> PennDOT, in the case of some new intersection reconstructions, can't get
> the traffic signal cycle time to work right with a legitimate pedestrian
> phase. Their response is to post "No Pedestrian" signs on all four
> approaches so if you get hit when crossing, they can stand up in court and
> claim it wasn't their fault.

All four corners! Surely there must be a legal challenge to the effect of
"how can all directions be signed 'no peds' when peds are not prohibited
along the road per se?" It's one thing not letting peds cross the road -
but not letting them cross the intersection at all? They have to fly over
it? :-)

> The frustration about this approach is that the judgement is made
> irrespective of whether or not there is a need for a pedestrian crossing
> at the location. On PA Route 29, near Malvern PA, there is an
> intersection posted in this manner with SEPTA bus stop signs on two of the
> corners and a big office park on the east side of the highway! The next
> nearest crossings are 1/4 and 3/4 miles away! Of course, the bus riders
> are forced to ignore the signs and scratch their heads.

--
##### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag...@freenet.carleton.ca
##### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
##### > < If you can't return a favour, pass it on.
##### >_./|\._< Opinions are my own. Consider them shareware if you want.