#101
|
|||
|
|||
Statisitics
In article
, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Mar 26, 10:55Â*pm, Dan O wrote: On Mar 26, 6:51 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Mar 26, 6:45 pm, Jay Beattie wrote: I am told that in some US states, you can treat the light as though it were broken -- but not here in Oregon.http://bikeportland.org/2011/03/11/s...blems-wash-co-... This failure of a sensor or induction loop is usually in the turn lane, and what you're supposed to do is act like a pedestrian -- go to the nearest curb and use the cross-walk button. Â*But even that requires you to break the traffic laws if you are pinned in the left turn lane. Â*You have to go back across on-coming traffic to get to a curb. Â*Might as well just turn. Â*This really does need to be addressed in the UVC. The Ohio Bicycle Federation has a proposal to change the law so as to specifically treat non-detection as a defective signal. Â*As of a few days ago, we're pretty sure we've got one lawmaker as a sponsor, and a couple more looking at co-sponsoring. Â*But yes, that needs to be in the UVC. I've had a left turn signal fail to detect my motorcycle. Â*In a way, it's even more of a problem, since I can't shuffle the motorcycle around or lie it down over the sensor to better affect the loop. Last fall, in my car, I was in a line of cars behind a tractor trailer rig that couldn't trigger a light. Â*Cross traffic was heavy, and we waited for nearly five minutes before the truck driver got enough clear space to proceed. Â*As soon as the following car hit the loop sensor, the light changed. Â*Apparently the truck's metal was too high to affect the sensing field. I know one guy who convinced his city's traffic crew to make up a test rig - an aluminum 20" bike wheel mounted on a 2x4 - to use when calibrating signals. Â*That really should be in the calibration manual, and used every time a loop sensor is calibrated. Â*However, it won't work for the newer camera-based systems. Â*For those, a bicyclist silhouette is needed, I think. Ohio DOT now has an email address devoted to the problem. Â*Ohio cyclists can send email to Â*describing the problem at the sensor. Â*They'll contact the responsible party to get it adjusted. Â*I've not tried this myself (the ones I pass seem to work well for me) but I've heard others have had good success. Â*Other states should do something similar. It's a lot less hassle to just ride across when it's clear. Some people try to fix problems, some people don't. Enough people quietly following a path create change. You are too far up on your high horse to see this. -- Michael Press |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Statisitics
In article
, Dan O wrote: On Mar 28, 12:05 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Mar 27, 11:31 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: I know one guy who convinced his city's traffic crew to make up a test rig - an aluminum 20" bike wheel mounted on a 2x4 - to use when calibrating signals. That really should be in the calibration manual, and used every time a loop sensor is calibrated. However, it won't work for the newer camera-based systems. For those, a bicyclist silhouette is needed, I think. Nope. Watch these videos and note that the cyclists are detected by their thermal signature almost head on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJklRkh_pc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DMrZz-LsM0 To the best of my knowledge, none of these traffic cameras have any kind of silhouette pattern matching or detection capabilities. http://www.traficon.com/information/news_detail.jsp?id=162 When the detector sees a bicycle approach the intersection, the traffic controller increases the green dwell time to allow additional time for the bicycle to make it through the intersection. Last time I checked, most cyclists roar through the intersection at maximum speed to reduce the amount of time they present a target for drivers. Another way to read it is that the revenue enhancement opportunities for traffic light timing control isn't ruined by accommodating cyclists. Those examples did look like they worked well. But locally, I've had cyclists tell me about a camera-controlled intersection where they were not detected. And a well-connected cycling activist in a distant city was the one who told me about using a cutout to calibrate the camera. Maybe different camera companies use different technology? I note that the "window" on your examples spanned the entire intersection. I like that; but ISTR seeing calibration images online from (apparently) a different camera vendor, which showed multiple and separate windows, one "looking at" the front of each lane. I also note that the one you've pointed to uses infrared. I wonder if there are any using visible light instead? In one discussion, a cyclist talked about opening his jacket wide to increase the size of his visible image, to aid in detection. Of course, that would also make him appear "hotter" to an infrared camera. I guess I should track down the various vendors and see how their technologies vary. A lot less hassle to just blow the light. Amen, brother. (after a full stop and a 360 degree assessment of the environment) -- Michael Press |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Statisitics
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:51:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote:
In article , Frank Krygowski wrote: Ohio DOT now has an email address devoted to the problem. *Ohio cyclists can send email to *describing the problem at the sensor. *They'll contact the responsible party to get it adjusted. *I've not tried this myself (the ones I pass seem to work well for me) but I've heard others have had good success. *Other states should do something similar. It's a lot less hassle to just ride across when it's clear. Some people try to fix problems, some people don't. Enough people quietly following a path create change. You are too far up on your high horse to see this. Michael, please explain how enough cyclists quietly riding through red lights would spontaneously get the lights' sensors to detect cyclists. Seems to me it would require _someone_ to tell _someone_ about the problem. What magic did you have in mind? - Frank Krygowski |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Statisitics
On Apr 17, 7:30*am, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:51:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote: In article , *Frank Krygowski wrote: Ohio DOT now has an email address devoted to the problem. *Ohio cyclists can send email to *describing the problem at the sensor. *They'll contact the responsible party to get it adjusted. *I've not tried this myself (the ones I pass seem to work well for me) but I've heard others have had good success. *Other states should do something similar. It's a lot less hassle to just ride across when it's clear. Some people try to fix problems, some people don't. Enough people quietly following a path create change. You are too far up on your high horse to see this. Michael, please explain how enough cyclists quietly riding through red lights would spontaneously get the lights' sensors to detect cyclists. *Seems to me it would require _someone_ to tell _someone_ about the problem. If bicyclists keep riding through the red light and nobody tells anybody, is there a problem? snip |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Statisitics
On 4/17/2013 2:11 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:30 am, wrote: On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:51:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote: In article , Frank Krygowski wrote: Ohio DOT now has an email address devoted to the problem. Ohio cyclists can send email to describing the problem at the sensor. They'll contact the responsible party to get it adjusted. I've not tried this myself (the ones I pass seem to work well for me) but I've heard others have had good success. Other states should do something similar. It's a lot less hassle to just ride across when it's clear. Some people try to fix problems, some people don't. Enough people quietly following a path create change. You are too far up on your high horse to see this. Michael, please explain how enough cyclists quietly riding through red lights would spontaneously get the lights' sensors to detect cyclists. Seems to me it would require _someone_ to tell _someone_ about the problem. If bicyclists keep riding through the red light and nobody tells anybody, is there a problem? snip That's a question for Schroedinger. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Statisitics
On 4/17/2013 4:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/17/2013 2:11 PM, Dan O wrote: On Apr 17, 7:30 am, wrote: On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:51:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote: In article , Frank Krygowski wrote: Ohio DOT now has an email address devoted to the problem. Ohio cyclists can send email to describing the problem at the sensor. They'll contact the responsible party to get it adjusted. I've not tried this myself (the ones I pass seem to work well for me) but I've heard others have had good success. Other states should do something similar. It's a lot less hassle to just ride across when it's clear. Some people try to fix problems, some people don't. Enough people quietly following a path create change. You are too far up on your high horse to see this. Michael, please explain how enough cyclists quietly riding through red lights would spontaneously get the lights' sensors to detect cyclists. Seems to me it would require _someone_ to tell _someone_ about the problem. If bicyclists keep riding through the red light and nobody tells anybody, is there a problem? snip That's a question for Schroedinger. Or his cat. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Statisitics
On Apr 18, 2:07*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article , wrote: On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:51:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote: In article , *Frank Krygowski wrote: Ohio DOT now has an email address devoted to the problem. *Ohio cyclists can send email to *describing the problem at the sensor. *They'll contact the responsible party to get it adjusted. *I've not tried this myself (the ones I pass seem to work well for me) but I've heard others have had good success. *Other states should do something similar. It's a lot less hassle to just ride across when it's clear. Some people try to fix problems, some people don't. Enough people quietly following a path create change. You are too far up on your high horse to see this. Michael, please explain how enough cyclists quietly riding through red lights would spontaneously get the lights' sensors to detect cyclists. *Seems to me it would require _someone_ to tell _someone_ about the problem. What magic did you have in mind? It's your question. You seem to have no answer. - Frank Krygowski |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Statisitics
On Apr 18, 8:11*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 18, 2:07*am, Michael Press wrote: In article , wrote: On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:51:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote: In article , *Frank Krygowski wrote: Ohio DOT now has an email address devoted to the problem. *Ohio cyclists can send email to *describing the problem at the sensor. *They'll contact the responsible party to get it adjusted. *I've not tried this myself (the ones I pass seem to work well for me) but I've heard others have had good success.. *Other states should do something similar. It's a lot less hassle to just ride across when it's clear. Some people try to fix problems, some people don't. Enough people quietly following a path create change. You are too far up on your high horse to see this. Michael, please explain how enough cyclists quietly riding through red lights would spontaneously get the lights' sensors to detect cyclists. *Seems to me it would require _someone_ to tell _someone_ about the problem. What magic did you have in mind? It's your question. You seem to have no answer. If conduct becomes so prevalent that prohibition is impossible, then prohibition will stop, either because government does not have the resources to prosecute the violators or because legislators will eventually get the picture and change the law. That doesn't help those who were prosecuted, though -- and I doubt that running non- responsive lights will become so prevalent that prohibition, viz., enforcement of the traffic laws, will stop. The smart approach is to get the ear of a legislator, propose some legislation and change the laws. It's much easier than one might think, particularly in a smallish state like Oregon. I just have to sit down and write a bill and then dump it on one of my legislator acquaintances and see if I can get some traction. -- Jay Beattie. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Statisitics
On Apr 18, 12:06*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:11*am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Apr 18, 2:07*am, Michael Press wrote: In article , wrote: On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:51:38 AM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote: In article , *Frank Krygowski wrote: Ohio DOT now has an email address devoted to the problem. *Ohio cyclists can send email to *describing the problem at the sensor. *They'll contact the responsible party to get it adjusted. *I've not tried this myself (the ones I pass seem to work well for me) but I've heard others have had good success. *Other states should do something similar. It's a lot less hassle to just ride across when it's clear. Some people try to fix problems, some people don't. Enough people quietly following a path create change. You are too far up on your high horse to see this. Michael, please explain how enough cyclists quietly riding through red lights would spontaneously get the lights' sensors to detect cyclists. *Seems to me it would require _someone_ to tell _someone_ about the problem. What magic did you have in mind? It's your question. You seem to have no answer. If conduct becomes so prevalent that prohibition is impossible, then prohibition will stop, either because government does not have the resources to prosecute the violators or because legislators will eventually get the picture and change the law. *That doesn't help those who were prosecuted, though -- and I doubt that running non- responsive lights will become so prevalent that prohibition, viz., enforcement of the traffic laws, will stop. *The smart approach is to get the ear of a legislator, propose some legislation and change the laws. *It's much easier than one might think, particularly in a smallish state like Oregon. *I just have to sit down and write a bill and then dump it on one of my legislator acquaintances and see if I can get some traction. That's what we're working on here in Ohio, too. We just missed a chance at an almost automatic law improvement, via an amendment in the state's budget bill, so we're back to collecting sponsors and co- sponsors. Another avenue would be to lobby for inclusion of a bicycle test standard in the manual and/or the official state procedure for setting sensitivity of traffic light detectors. I think it's probably best to work on both of those fronts. And I think it's best to pay no mind to the people who mock efforts to make things better for cyclists. - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|