- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>LTA should relook justification for simultaneous green lights at crossings
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the Land Transport Authority's (LTA) reply, 'Road safety a shared responsibility, says LTA', on Monday to letters on the traffic arrangement that permits vehicles to turn while pedestrians are crossing.
I had written to the LTA highlighting the danger of such pedestrian crossings after a boy was killed at one of them.
While I do not have details of the recent fatal accident involving the model pupil on her way to class, I can feel the pain of parents who lose a child in such accidents. I believe others share the sadness.
The LTA's approach - that road safety is a shared responsibility - is too idealistic. In the corporate world, I believe many employees understand what 'shared responsibility' is. But that is easier said than done. How will the LTA share this with the 63-year-old van driver involved in the recent accident?
Let me recap what I wrote to the LTA. I have seen some near-misses by motorists who did not give way to pedestrians even though the latter had the right of way. Accidents were narrowly avoided because the pedestrians were alert adults.
One of the main problems is the way the human brain processes information - that is, one bit at a time.
As a motorist, I realise that when a driver sees no oncoming vehicles, his immediate focus is to make the turn quickly. His turning speed tends to be fast to avoid being caught in the path of oncoming traffic. Within those few seconds, he has very little time to react if there is a pedestrian crossing the road. Line of sight is also a contributing factor.
My point is, why can't we have a red arrow to stop motorists from turning when the green man lights up? With today's technology, the no-turning arrow can be activated when a pedestrian presses the button that activates the green man.
Lawrence Lee
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the Land Transport Authority's (LTA) reply, 'Road safety a shared responsibility, says LTA', on Monday to letters on the traffic arrangement that permits vehicles to turn while pedestrians are crossing.
I had written to the LTA highlighting the danger of such pedestrian crossings after a boy was killed at one of them.
While I do not have details of the recent fatal accident involving the model pupil on her way to class, I can feel the pain of parents who lose a child in such accidents. I believe others share the sadness.
The LTA's approach - that road safety is a shared responsibility - is too idealistic. In the corporate world, I believe many employees understand what 'shared responsibility' is. But that is easier said than done. How will the LTA share this with the 63-year-old van driver involved in the recent accident?
Let me recap what I wrote to the LTA. I have seen some near-misses by motorists who did not give way to pedestrians even though the latter had the right of way. Accidents were narrowly avoided because the pedestrians were alert adults.
One of the main problems is the way the human brain processes information - that is, one bit at a time.
As a motorist, I realise that when a driver sees no oncoming vehicles, his immediate focus is to make the turn quickly. His turning speed tends to be fast to avoid being caught in the path of oncoming traffic. Within those few seconds, he has very little time to react if there is a pedestrian crossing the road. Line of sight is also a contributing factor.
My point is, why can't we have a red arrow to stop motorists from turning when the green man lights up? With today's technology, the no-turning arrow can be activated when a pedestrian presses the button that activates the green man.
Lawrence Lee
