I could see a use for this kind of device here and there in Boston. Roads are quite cramped here, not like these open western boooolevaaards. In less space than Alaska Avenue, Huntington Avenue in Boston crams sidewalks, on-street parking, two travel lanes and light rail. It can be very hard for a driver to see when pedestrians are waiting to cross at a crosswalk, or even already crossing the crosswalk. Cars just stop short in Boston if someone sneezes, so if someone's stopped in the right lane, everyone will tend just to go around him, and BANG, that's the end of the pedestrian that the guy in the right lane stopped for. With flashing lights, there'd be no question. Even Boston drivers stop for flashing yellow lights.

SAFETY I LOVE IT!

I believe it was just a couple weeks ago that a rabbinical council somewhere in the USA (I think it was in California?) ruled that even passive detection violates the Sabbath's rules about operating devices.

Granted, rabbinical councils in other countries don't seem to take issue with passive detection (or at least an article I just found on an Australian example seems to be OK). I'm not quite sure how things vary from council to council.

Not sure, but then wouldn't that also apply to any traffic control system since this one requires no actual manual pressing of a button and is optional if you don't use the pad?

Alright not serious, but come on, that would be pretty funny.

Regarding the snow plow question, I have seen "bots dots" that are installed in a small gouged recess in the pavement. I'm sure that this could be done with the lighted type as well.

I would not call these unsafe. What they are is another tool that can be used in situations where there is no way a DOT is going to put in stoplight or stop sign. I'd much rather have these lights accompanying me in crossing a busy stretch (look at the video and the shot from above) then just a painted crosswalk and taking my chances. In that light, I think it is certainly better than the alternative. But if I had my druthers, you are right - a stop sign would be far better than any solution.

From what I saw in Seattle cars stopped whenever the lights were going and the pedestrian was in the xwalk. One thing I did wish however - that there was some signs indicating that it was indeed a ped-activated crosswalk. There was no documentation.

http://vimeo.com/3748243

they also have them on lower Mission - headed towards Daly City.

the way I see it, they're unsafe. they're just an excuse to not slow cars down. at least one of the locations on Mission uses a human crossing guard -- it's in front of a church, i think.

also, in my experience -- as a pedestrian, bikers, and driver -- is that nobody knows that cars are actually supposed to stop at these crosswalks - lighted or not. i bet cops hear that all the time from violators who don't give right of way to pedestrians -- they'll claim, honestly, "but i did slow down and he didn't look like he wanted to cross so i just kept going."

that ambiguity is what gets people injured or worse. i say put in a stop sign, slow cars down temporarily, make things safer -- it's not the end of the world.