Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site varian.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!vlsvax1!zehntel!varian!fred
From: fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink)
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: car-sensors at traffic lights
Message-ID: <358@varian.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 19:42:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: varian.358
Posted: Mon Aug 12 19:42:14 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 22:26:45 EDT
References: <1043@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Varian, Walnut Creek, CA
Lines: 23

> These all are a nuisance, however an advantage of #3 is that since the
> traffic engineers realize that the average pedestrian doesn't walk at
> > 20 mph., the light will stay green for you longer, avoiding the
> problem of it turning green for the cross street while you've still got
> a couple lanes of a fairly wide intersection to cross.

	Sorry ahead of time to any civil engineering types on the net
	but at least around here I don't credit traffic "engineers" with
	any conscious consideration of road use by peds, bikes or others.
	I've given up using the push to walk buttons because (a) they
	don't do anything (my wife calls these the placebo buttons),
	or (b) they result in a 5 second green light, just about adequate
	for a world class sprinter to cross on, or (c) they are placed in
	position which is almost inaccessible to a cyclist without a 
	complete dismount.

	To add a bright spot to this whole discussion though, Palo Alto
	California (home of Stanford), has just enacted a number of pro-
	bike laws one of which is *all* lane sensors must be sensitive
	to bicycles.  Hooray for our side!

	I am waiting to see how they make a lane sensor detect a carbon
	fiber Peugout (:-))