On 4 Nov, 20:46, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
17:44:06 on Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

Is there a theoretical reason why they are supposed to be "better"? I
did try Googling when one of the blasted things arrived near here, but
couldn't find a good explanation.

Yes, to look at the red/green men, you have to face the oncoming
traffic. Supposedly you are therefore less likely to run across the road
having failed to notice that there *is* and oncoming traffic (regardless
of the state of the men).

One of the many flaws is that if you are consciously wanting to look for
the red/green men, you probably also aren't likely to be taking a punt
on running across the road regardless of the state of the lights.

For a couple of generations we've been trained, cajoled and exhorted to
look for the red/green men across the road, high up. We simply don't
expect to find them on our side of the road, at knee height. Sideways.

Backwards in many situations. You have to look away from the road and/
or step back.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:46:15 +0000,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
17:44:06 on Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
Is there a theoretical reason why they are supposed to be "better"? I
did try Googling when one of the blasted things arrived near here, but
couldn't find a good explanation.

Yes, to look at the red/green men, you have to face the oncoming
traffic. Supposedly you are therefore less likely to run across the road
having failed to notice that there *is* and oncoming traffic (regardless
of the state of the men).

One of the many flaws is that if you are consciously wanting to look for
the red/green men, you probably also aren't likely to be taking a punt
on running across the road regardless of the state of the lights.

And are the sort of people who if the green man changes back to red as
they step out will step back and wait for the next green man. Now they
don't see it change back.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

For a couple of generations we've been trained, cajoled and exhorted to
look for the red/green men across the road, high up. We simply don't
expect to find them on our side of the road, at knee height. Sideways.


Not only that, but red and green men on the other side of the road
constitute a pretty widely adopted standard across many parts of the world.
Has anybody seen the our side/knee high (or at best waist high) arrangement
anywhere outside the UK?

Martin

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:18:22 +0000 (UTC), Peter Campbell Smith
wrote:

To change the subject slightly, I see that (many? all?) new crossings have
the red and green man (person?) mounted at waist height at the side of the
road one is waiting at, rather than opposite. I suppose we'll get used to
it, but I've already seen people:

I think those are an almighty pain in the backside, as it isn't
necessarily possible to find the box, establish the light is green and
cross the road without breaking stride from a fast walking pace,
particularly if people are standing in the way of it or you are (as I
am) a wearer of spectacles[1]. This is, OTOH, possible with the
traditional type.

Indeed, with those ones I often find myself looking at the traffic
lights controlling the road traffic instead.

[1] because they narrow your field of vision slightly compared with
contact lenses or not needing any at all!

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.