It substantially increases pedestrian wait times though. In a grid city if I'm headed north east, I opportunistically take north or east, whichever is available. So I have no wait time at all for most of my journey, until the part when I have to go only north (say). A grid makes this the typical situation and placing a wait at every light makes the journey very tedious. It also slows down cars, of course. I'm sure this is the main reason it's not done - whether it's worth the risk, I'm not sure.

Here in the NL, all turns are protected with a middle island for pedestrians. You hardly have to wait to cross a busy intersection on foot, at least to get halfway across.

> In the UK almost all junctions have either people crossing, or cars turning, but not both at the same time.

This sounds super strange from a continental European standard as well. Do you mean that cars and pedestrians are never crossing these intersections at the same time?

In any case, the UK also has at least a few cities where pedestrians often have no dedicated signal and are (in these junctions) left to fend for themselves while crossing due to the lack of signals and lack of priority. I don’t understand that situation at all.

Pedestrians in the UK need to wait until all traffic are red, then they can cross the junction (even diagonally).

This is indeed different from continental Europe, as a pedestrian I kinda preferred the system in the UK, but you could wait quite a long time.

> Do you mean that cars and pedestrians are never crossing these intersections at the same time?

Well yeah... because that'd be dangerous if they went at the same time wouldn't it?

No. Have you visited cities in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, etc.? Most larger intersections have several crossings (1-2 on each side) that are signaled appropriately to allow pedestrians, cars, and often trams and/or bicycles simultaneous but separate right-of-way.

In my experience, it’s nearly always clear to everyone where they can go while moving traffic around quite efficiently. The UK system seems to either keep pedestrians entirely separate or throw them into the deep end with car-prioritized signaling.

(However, the latter may only be in the city I’m in at the moment, as I at least haven’t seen this in London.)

Seems bonkers to me to have people and cars in the same space at the same time.

You mention right of way but it's no comfort to me that I have right of way over a car when the car is trying to push through or running me over!

> Seems bonkers to me to have people and cars in the same space at the same time.

That seems pretty unavoidable to me, considering we put sidewalks right next to roads. As a pedestrian, I don't want to wait for both directions of traffic to have their turns to cross before I get mine. Though it can be handy if I need to cross diagonally.

This is sort of the case in the US at some crossings. Crossings where there is a separate signal for left turns will turn on the don't-walk sign on that side when the left-turn signal is green.

Occasionally I do see intersections where there is a signal phase where car traffic is red in both directions, and pedestrians get the walk signal in all directions (which is extra handy if you need to go diagonally across the intersection). But these are pretty rare.

Most intersections don't have left-turn signals at all for cars, so yes, there will be pedestrians crossing when cars are turning. And I guess for right turns it's nearly always the case that pedestrians are crossing when cars are turning.

It's not great, but I think there's a trade off to be made. As a frequent pedestrian in a city, I don't want to have to wait until both directions of cars have their turn before I can cross. I get that the current situation does increase the risk to me, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. (But I also jaywalk through don't-walk signs all the time if traffic is clear, so perhaps I'm not the best person to make this judgment.)

I guess it's more efficient, because at a four-way intersection in the north-american system there are always pedestrians and cars crossing. Whereas in the standard european system, either cars going left are stopped in a dedicated lane, or pedestrians are waiting for the cars that are going left to finish.

obviously that efficiency comes at the cost of a higher mortality :(

I would have thought the UK way was more efficient because you can cross diagonally? In the US system you have to wait for two sets of lights to cross diagonally.

> Whereas in the standard european system, either cars going left are stopped in a dedicated lane, or pedestrians are waiting for the cars that are going left to finish.

We have this in the US as well, but only at more-busy intersections that warrant a dedicated left-turn signal arrow. Pedestrians who could get hit by left-turning cars are given a don't-walk sign while the left arrow is green.

We do have this. We have this all over the country! But either nobody knows about it, or they ignore it.

When the "WALK" sign turns to a flashing "DONT WALK" (or their equivalent symbols) pedestrians are not supposed to enter the intersection.

Pedestrians already in the intersection can safely complete their crossing, but if you're on the sidewalk, you aren't supposed to step into the crosswalk.

It's basically the yellow light for pedestrians.

This is 100% completely ignored everywhere that I have been. Especially in big cities.

> When the "WALK" sign turns to a flashing "DONT WALK" (or their equivalent symbols) pedestrians are not supposed to enter the intersection.

This is no longer true in San Francisco (and possibly CA as a whole?). Pedestrians are allowed to enter the intersection when the don't-walk sign is already flashing, as long as they are out by the time it goes solid (in practice this means you usually will only do this if the flashing don't-walk sign is accompanied by a countdown timer). I believe this law change happened at the beginning of 2020.

As someone who is a consummate jaywalker, I love this, though I do think it's questionable from a safety perspective. Then again, is it? If someone is already moving in the intersection when the light turns green, oncoming traffic should be able to easily see the person. And they'll just be starting to accelerate from a stop, so (with the exception of idiots with high-perf engines who just need to show them off all the time) the cars will be moving pretty slowly. They can stop again just as quickly if they need to, and pedestrians still have a good amount of time to get out of the intersection.

This "already moving in the intersection" phenomenon is (I believe) what drives a semi-recent light timing change: the pedestrian signals at many intersections now transition to "walk" about 5 seconds before the drivers in that direction transition from red to green. This gives time for pedestrians to get into the intersection and be seen, before drivers start making left and right turns into the crosswalks.

Hmmm but I thought a car is usually allowed to cross the pedestrian crossing, especially if turning right, even when the pedestrians are on WALK?

The car is supposed to yield to pedestrian traffic. Which usually means slowly inching towards the walkers in an intimidating manner if they don’t hurry it up.

This doesn't stop vehicles in an unprotected left turning and creaming pedestrians. Unless the signal also has a red turn arrow.

> I don't get why North Americans have people crossing at the same time as cars are turning.

Its the same in Australia as well, the cars wait for pedestrians and then proceed with the turn till the light is green for them.

And make car drivers wait for precious seconds?? Heresy!