Streetpong [video]
streetpong.infoInteresting idea, saw this make the rounds a little bit ago.
The installation in the video is not real, but because of the popularity of the video, they're currently working on a physical prototype.
The fact that you eventually meet your opponent when the light goes green is awesome.
Wonder how many people will take the game far too seriously and start a fight in the middle of the road..
That is a horrible mentality.
I don't see how the game has anything to do with it. If a person is capable of physically retaliating to a complete stranger over a game of pong, that person is mentally ill and has serious problem existing in society regardless.
This looks a little dangerous to me, because it makes the pedestrian take their mind off the road. Just last week, a car accidentally drove up on the side walk part of the crosswalk and would have hit me had I not been paying attention and jumped out of the way. From what I understand this is not an uncommon event either. It's not like the lip of the curve is really any protection against the cars, a car can easily drive over it.
It is an uncommon event. If it were common, we would be protecting every street corner with large bollards or a concrete wall.
How many cars pass through an intersection on any given day. How many end up on the curb?
In parts of the world, bollards are much more common. But in New York City, they are much more rare: http://www.streetsblog.org/2005/10/14/making-nycs-streets-sa...
There have been a significant number of cases where cars end up sidewalks near where I live. It's not just drunk drivers; it's often distracted drivers who are texting or using an app.
Bollards are a great and fairly cheap solution, but many bureaucrats are pro-car and oppose them for the danger they might pose to drivers.
<< [O]ne of the downsides to bollards is that while protecting human beings, they can do damage to automobiles. John Kaehny, the former executive director of Transportation Alternatives was a big fan of bollards and often pushed the city to install them at dangerous locations. DOT traffic engineers consistently opposed his efforts telling him that bollards were no good because they did damage to cars or that bollards struck at high speed could "become dislodged and become dangerous projectiles that might kill or injure pedestrians." These are the kinds of stories that makes one think New York City traffic engineers empathize more with automobiles than people. >>
Wow. What a disgusting quote. As if a "high speed" car on the sidewalk isn't already a dangerous projectile :P
It may be unlikely but it does happen. I know someone who drove off the road (60mph single carriageway) at high speed and into a bollard. The bollard went through the air, smashed through a house window and caused the inhabitant to have a heart attack.
If someone hits a pedestrian at even 40 mph, it's 85% likely to result in a fatality: http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/04/27/waiting-for-raymond-de...
If that same accident happens at 20 mph, there's only a 5% chance of a fatality. That's a big reason why London lowered the speed limit in the heart of the city to 20 mph: http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/09/13/the-heart-of-london-ad...
New York is pushing for a similar change... hopefully if and when it happens, more bollards can be put in place without endangering others. http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/05/16/neighborhoods-across-n...
I don't know, I've witnessed it twice that I can recall and I don't even spend a lot of time walking around among traffic. I think the game might actually lower the risk profile since at least one pedestrian and possible observers would be inclined to stand behind the metal pole, rather than on the curb of the street. I would hope that the game were a little more engaging though, considering it would get old after the first time playing.
It's common enough that many crossings in the UK are protected with metal barriers. It's not at all uncommon to see those barriers bent and twisted where a car has hit them.
Sure thousands of cars can pass through a crossing every day with out on mounting the pavement. But road safety is all about improving the odds.
Definitely not dangerous (maybe in the USA), you're just waiting for your light to switch. Better than standing and tapping on your phone, it seems fun, it involves another person across the street that you get to meet, high fives and a lot of smiles. This is how the life should be. Wait.. in America a strange wouldn't give you a high five, that would be just weird, why would someone do that? What if they have cooties?
:D
Hey! I live in America and I like it!
The risk of someone dying due to distraction and a failure to avoid an out of control car is dramatically less than the risk of someone dying due to getting bored and jaywalking into traffic.
Not sure how many countries have jaywalking type laws, but in every country I have lived in or or been to, bar the US and (after reading the below link) Singapore, it's just called 'crossing the road http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
The legal situation isn't particularly relevant so much as whether or not people will decide to cross the street before the light tells them to, and whether that has a higher probability of accident.
It's not really any different to someone checking Twitter or FB ;)
You also shouldn't be checking Twitter or FB at a friggin crosswalk! You should be paying attention to traffic.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/17/cell-ph...
Usually I stand at a crosswalk and thus have little risk of walking off a bridge or into traffic. Also I see little point in always anticipating someone who drives into pedestrians. But if they do, I guess standing to the right of the traffic light gives me a slightly better chance of survival.
And while it routinely happens that motorists will ignore pedestrians or cyclists at corners or that they drive over red lights, I have yet to see someone accidentally driving on the sidewalk at a traffic light, endangering pedestrians there.
You should be glad it didn't happen to you, but unfortunately it happens to other people all the time.
http://news.ca.msn.com/local/montreal/pedestrian-killed-on-s...
http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/11/11/three-killed-by-curb-j...
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/19681198/car-drives-onto-sidewa...
http://gothamist.com/2013/11/11/two_pedestrians_killed_after...
http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20131226/san-bernardino-ma...
And these are just the first few links that show up on googling for "pedestrian killed on sidewalk" there are many, many, many more articles just like these.
News is news because it is a rare or uncommon event. I'd be very wary of extrapolating "there are news articles about this event" to "it happens all the time".
I would much prefer a link that provided me actual data in order to believe that this is an event that occurs all the time (such as the number deaths of pedestrians on sidewalks per capita).
For example, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration put out a 2008 report (I chose 2008 as it was the top result on Google) listing the average pedestrian fatality rate per 100,000 people by state [1]. It seems to range from ~1 to ~3.
According to the CDC, there are 799.5 deaths per 100,000 population in the United States (2010 data) [2]. This means my chance of dying as a pedestrian, compared to other potential means of me dying are around 0.3%.
A few studies have found that between 80% and 90% of pedestrian fatalities are a result of the pedestrian being at fault (this comes from the Center for Problem Oriented Policing [3], which cites two sources for this information [4] [5]). This means, again as a percentage chance of all other forms of death, dying while standing on the sidewalk is somewhere in the ballpark of 0.06%.
[1] http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810968.PDF (page 18, figure 2-4).
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
[3] http://www.popcenter.org/problems/pedestrian_injuries/
[4] Lee and Abdel-Aty (2005)
[5] Teanby, Gorman, and Boot (1993)
I'm a bit hesitant to extrapolate a danger from anecdata. I might try finding actual data tonight. From experience so far I'd guess I'm much more likely to die when exercising my right of way as a cyclist.
If you're speaking of the traffic light pole providing protection, that might not be the case. I'm sure it's not the same everywhere, but for my area the poles are made to snap off at the base in case of a car hitting it. I would imagine the thought is that it saves the occupants of the car from a more severe impact, especially with the big poles.
I wasn't too serious about that, but from what I've seen they don't seem to snap easily; at least here. I'm also not sure whether it's better to have a traffic light pole falling on an intersection instead of just having a car stop at the pole (the former sounds like there could be more injuries involved).
Most are designed to snap off when hit. There is actually a real LOT that goes into roadway sign engineering and we have learned that it is the safest option. It's called a breakaway feature.
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/policy_guide/road_ha...
>Roadside signs, utility poles, lighting structures, traffic signals, railroad warning devices, motorist-aid callboxes, mailboxes, and other rigid objects can become deadly roadside hazards if placed where run-off-the-road vehicles can strike them. While it is preferable to maintain obstacle-free roadside clear zones, this is not always a practical option. When rigid objects cannot be removed or relocated, potential crash impacts can be mitigated by specifying breakaway features, or by shielding the object with a longitudinal barrier or crash cushion.
And here's a video of a light pole breakaway feature being tested. :)
I would call that "feature" a "bug" on a street corner where pedestrians are standing.
For this reason I tend to position myself behind the nearby traffic pole relative to traffic on my side of the road while waiting for the 'cross' light.
This video is CGI - at the point it was filmed, it was just a concept, but it's had a positive reaction and so it's actually been installed.
Source: translation of http://vimeo.com/48514003
Germany has a whole different level of first-world problems: "Hmm what was my biggest annoyance today? ... I was bored while standing at the traffic lights"
:)
Yes, because we are actually stopping at them!
Like .. right at this moment? You're doing that right now?
(Hint: Here's how you say that sentence properly: "Yes, because we actually stop at them!" The way you constructed it - you're doing it at the moment, definitively ..)
No, lis is right. Germany is stopping problems right now. It's valid because it's vague enough to refer to this year, this month, etc.
Also, your sentence
> Yes, because we actually stop at them!
> stop at them!
> at them!
Muphry's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_Law
The sentence: "yes, because we are actually stopping at them" is in reference to the subject: "the traffic lights". The originator of the sentence was intending to convey the meaning that Germans - in general - stop at the traffic lights, whereas non-Germans, generally, do not.
Ask yourself this question: Are they stopping at the traffic lights right now in the present-progessive sense? Is the speaker talking about doing this 'right now'?
http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/pres_pro.htm
.. or is it .. in the Simple Present form?
http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/simple_present_form...
Based on your link, use number 4 of the present progressive fits the OP's original statement: "actions happening around the moment of speaking (longer actions)"
In that case, the sentence would be properly formed thus:
"The Germans do stop at traffic lights. Non-Germans, do not."
Notice the difference?
Final Edit: the German-formed sentence I was correcting:
.. becomes:"Yes, because we (Germans) are actually stopping at them!"
Now, we can certainly look at the downvotes I've earned as a result of my personal foul use of language, but for the German-native speakers who make this mistake, it makes a huge difference in how well they are, actually, understood by English visitors. Please re-read, and see for yourself."Yes, because we (Germans) do actually stop at them."This is off-off-topic, but I wish forums allowed users to state that they would be happy to have their grammar and spelling corrected by ticking a checkbox, and that every comment could have a sub-discussion just for that, on its own page. That would be useful, or? (<-- joke :P) Because otherwise whatever you do, it's wrong: making a correction makes you seem like a jerk, and not making a correction makes you feel like a jerk (because you know something they don't, and you're not sharing it).
Not necessarily. I think the way the sentence was originally worded is also correct. It means in general, Germans are stopping at traffic lights on an ongoing basis. I don't think the immediacy on the part of the speaker. is a strict requirement.
Are you describing something happening right now, posessively (i.e. right in front of you?) Then the sentence "they are stopping in front of the traffic lights" is correct.
But are you describing a general activity, which you have observed, and which you do not currently possess, in front of you, at the moment? In which case referring to the definite possessive form "they are" is incorrect - who are 'they'? Are you observing this activity immediately?
The correct way to say this sentence: "Germans stop at traffic lights." They're not doing it right now, they're not in front of you - its a general case.
There is a reason to understand and use language properly. I happen to live in a German-speaking country, and this mistake is made often because it is, simply, not taught properly. (I also get my German corrected in the same way, and OFTEN, so lest you feel I'm being curmudgeonly for any reason other than revenge .. ;)
Actually you just came across like a tool.
You understood their point, had nothing to add, so you thought you'd be a tool instead.[0]
[0] Just as I have done.
I live surrounded by Germans making this mistake. I'm their tool.
It seems that those saying, “are we really this sad that we need video games on street lights to entertain us,” are missing the point a bit.
First sentence on the web-site: “StreetPong is a concept about playful urban interactions.” The last three words are the key here. I think it is a cool way to encourage complete strangers in a big anonymous city to have a little interaction, and then get to shake hands or high-five as they pass each other crossing the street.
Who knows what positive effects little ideas like this could foster?
This is an 'urban interaction' installation, where two people waiting on opposite sides of a pedestrian crossing can play each other in a game of pong.
Pretty cool :)
I wonder what they are using for communicating between the two touch screens on each side of the road. It almost looks like the touch screens are large mobile phones.
Nothing at all.
It's a concept created using VFX[1].
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/10/german-crosswalk-lets-opp...
I think I'm more impressed with the use VFX to demonstrate ideas than the pong game itself!
Is this life now? Nobody can wait a minute to cross the street without something to distract them with? Constant stimulation. I know this isn't real, but this isn't a neat idea. We need a bit of boring time in our lives.
I like this concept - small, usable art installations designed to make inconspicuous things social. But the pessimist in me takes one look at their concept and things "That's going to break so quickly here in Boston."
What I would love to see, and which seems realistic from this video, is an installation that shows the people waiting a "loading bar" or countdown or some visual indicator of how long until the crosswalk is green for pedestrians. In the video they show this as the background color - red or green - gradually draining from the screen.
It's not really pessimistic at all. It's realistic. Putting video screens at hand level in public is just begging for vandalism. Doesn't matter how much chemically treated glass you layer on top, it will get punched/kicked/keyed/stabbed. Repeatedly. Look at how bulletproof the simple microswitch behind the "Press For Walk Signal" needs to be.
> That's going to break so quickly here in Boston.
Depends on what you mean by "break". In Boston, you might just get, epic, hour-long pong battles. Seriously, the pedestrian signal situation in Boston is so haphazard you could hardly make it worse by introducing experiments like this.
There would be a large, nonremovable-without-chemicals-and-scrubbing sticker placed on the screen within a day.
Hmm, looks fake to me, the image/text is wobbling differently than the camera.
Good eye, I didn't notice at all. It is indeed fake and done with a green screen and post processing.
I wish there were traffic lights that would countdown until the the light changes (quantitative) or use something like an hourglass (qualitative).
There are... just not in the US. They're actually a mixed bag so it's not necessarily a tragedy that the US doesn't use them:
Based on the operational studies, only the red time countdown device has a positive influence on safety and delay but increases the travel time and decreases the capacity. The pedestrian countdown signal, however, has little improvements for both travel directions.[1]
[1] http://www.ce.siue.edu/faculty/hzhou/publication/What%20do%2...
Actually, we have them all over in the DC area.
Pretty cool!
What if winning the game granted your side a couple of seconds head start? I wonder if there would be little impromptu election committees formed on each side to nominate a representative for that side; "Step aside, I got this..."
Or maybe there could be a more cooperative game where the collaborative success at some activity would make the light change sooner. That would be awesome!
I was just thinking that there is really room for another innovation. Ever been a driver at an intersection where you have a turning green light at the same time as the pedestrians crossing the street you are trying to turn on and there is a constant stream of one or two people that keeps you and other drivers from turning until the pedestrian light turns red and only one car has the chance to turn? How about implementing something like the OP light, that leads to grouping pedestrians crossing the street to allow a car to turn in between them. Seems smart to me, especially in areas like universities or work centers where there are rushes of people in between classes, lunch, or rush-hour.
In most US cities it's technically illegal to drive through the crosswalk until all pedestrians have reached a crub, even if they are crossing clear across the way. It's a great idea though.
I think what you're describing is a "scamble" crosswalk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble
They're a nice way of balancing foot traffic with the need for vehicles to turn at a light. I'm not sure why they're not more popular around the world.
Not quite. I was thinking of a single crossing. At least in the US at many intersections the pedestrian light is synced with the parallel car traffic, which leads to a stream of people blocking right turn traffic due to a constant stream. I am talking about building in a batch iteration, e.g., during the green light, there is a flashing yellow that requires pedestrians to stop for 5 seconds, which would cause pedestrians crossing to group together and creating gaps during which cars can turn.
> I'm not sure why they're not more popular around the world
Because they tend to prioritize pedestrian traffic.
Can't have those poor people taking over our streets, now can we? Feet don't make rich people money, cars do.
Off-topic: Does anybody know why you have to wait for a pedestrian crossing light to turn green at all?
If it's usually green for car traffic all the time, and only turns green for pedestrians on request, why not change immediately when somebody pushes the button?
There is a lot of information available on this subject. So I’ll start with a link to the FHA’s Traffic Control Systems Handbook - http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop06006/chapte...
The basic idea regarding vehicle and pedestrian movements is that the system can be entirely pretimed (interval control) or divided up into phases (phase control). The typical idea of operation is that any compatible phases should be able to run concurrently so long as there is time available. During Pedestrian Walk and Clearance time however these phases cannot be forced off or timed out. (Otherwise people could get hit by cars) This limits the amount of time the button can be pressed during a green light and still change the pedestrian signal.
Some do. Lights do all sorts of different things, ranging from turning immediately (as long as they did not just turn) to fully ignoring your input and just letting you feel better by pounding the button, and all sorts of things in between.
Neat, I guess, but personally I think people should be more alert and aware when in and around traffic, not more distracted.
If thy don't call this Ample/Ampel Time then this is not a world I want to live in.
(Ampel being the German for traffic light)
Huh. I thought this was actually "Why Games Should Enter The Public Domain" for a while (though of course I should have known better because of HN's headline policy). If it were, it would be a wonderful argument in it's simplicity; as is, it's a concrete example.
Yeah, sure, it's cool, but take a step back and it's actually kind of sickening. All plays back to society needing constant stimulation of some kind. We can't just wait, or be bored, heaven forbid, anymore. Our phones aren't even enough now!
Why is it sickening? There is no virtue in being bored; no goal to be achieved by doing nothing. If I have time, I wish to do something useful with it, and entertainment is useful (if not, then life would be rather dull).
There is a certain perverse nostalgia these days to times before smartphones, before the internet, before the telephone, before technology. Wasn't it great when you were stuck on train without a book, and just had to grin and bear it? Many would argue this builds character. I would argue it's luddite masochism.
>There is no virtue in being bored; no goal to be achieved by doing nothing.
Boredom is actually good for children and adults.
http://www.ahaparenting.com/parenting-tools/raise-great-kids...
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405311190345450... - you'll need to view the google link to see the full article - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21895704
>Wasn't it great when you were stuck on train without a book, and just had to grin and bear it?
Seriously? Is it THAT bad sitting quietly by yourself that you had to use the expression "grin and bear it?" I would not be upset being on a train without entertainment. In fact, I don't usually bring entertainment with me on flights or trains and if I do, I usually don't end up using them anyways.
The point is not to be bored, but to appreciate each and every moment for what it is, not merely as a vehicle to another more important moment.
Thirty years ago, when I was still a novice at Tu Hieu Pagoda, washing the dishes was hardly a pleasant task. During the Season of Retreat when all the monks returned to the monastery, two novices had to do all the cooking and wash the dishes for sometimes well over one hundred monks. There was no soap. We had only ashes, rice husks, and coconut husks, and that was all. Cleaning such a high stack of bowls was a chore, especially during the winter when the water was freezing cold. Then you had to heat up a big pot of water before you could do any scrubbing. Nowadays one stands in a kitchen equipped with liquid soap, special scrubpads, and even running hot water which makes it all the more agreeable. It is easier to enjoy washing the dishes now. Anyone can wash them in a hurry, then sit down and enjoy a cup of tea afterwards. I can see a machine for washing clothes, although I wash my own things out by hand, but a dishwashing machine is going just a little too far! While washing the dishes one should only be washing the dishes, which means that while washing the dishes one should be completely aware of the fact that one is washing the dishes. At first glance, that might seem a little silly:
Why put so much stress on a simple thing? But that's precisely the point. The fact that I am standing there and washing these bowls is a following my breath, conscious of my presence, and conscious of my thoughts and actions. There's no way I can be tossed around mindlessly like a bottle slapped here and there on the waves.
http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/G%20-%20TNH/TNH/Fro...
That's very poetic, but entirely meaningless. It merely posits that because we used to do dishes by hand, we are now missing something by not doing them. Which is true, in the same way that we're missing something by not having polio epidemics anymore.
My current flat has a dishwasher, my last flat did not. Time that I once spent doing the dishes, I now spend on my side project, or engaging with friends, or relaxing with a book. Each of these is more enjoyable, and more meaningful, than concentrating on washing the dishes.
I appreciate each and every moment for what it is, but I appreciate moments of pleasure more than moments of boredom. That should not be a strange thing.
Please stop pretending to be wise: http://lesswrong.com/lw/yp/pretending_to_be_wise/
I think the worry is that instead of "having" to initiate interaction with other humans for the non-boredom you're praising, everyone will just open their cellphone.
The above solution at least allows 2 random people to interact while waiting, which counteracts the isolation tendency IMHO.
No one is being nostalgic for boredom. The concern is more along the lines of, as we fill life with trivial distraction and meaningless micro-achievements, we crowd out the more valuable but more difficult achievements as we lose our ability to stomach a little boredom or hard work or displeasure to get there.
> There is no virtue in being bored; no goal to be achieved by doing nothing.
Yeah, actually there is. Not only is it important to unplug from technology on a regular basis, but an idle brain is useful for creative thinking and problem solving.
> an idle brain is useful for creative thinking and problem solving.
This is a more reasonable argument, and I agree. It is often useful to have quiet space to think. That said, I prefer to put the dishwasher on, and go for a walk outside for 15minutes, than to stay inside doing the dishes. The dishes themselves are not in and of themselves important. In the case of the streetlight, many people may be too busy navigating the streets to relax properly into a good idle state, or they may be pissed off and want some light-hearted fun; we should not make value judgments on them for that.
> it [is] important to unplug from technology on a regular basis
Whilst I might not necessarily disagree with you on this point, people often make this claim with no actual evidence or reasoning. Why is it important to unplug? In some situations, I can clearly see a benefit - for example, eating dinner with friends, pulling out a phone to check social media disrupts your ability to connect with your friends, makes you seem rude, and will likely reduce the quality of your interaction. When I'm on the train to work in the morning, listening to music and reading web articles on my phone seems like a net benefit.
There can be benefits to avoiding technology and to doing things properly and in-person - but those should be evaluated on an individual basis with logic, rather than with a general appeal to puritan work-ethics and ascetism.
"If a Victorian gentleman arrived in present-day London, he'd think we'd been invaded by glowing rectangles"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/aug/24/charlie...
We did something similar a few months back, though there's no CGI effects in our video:
Great idea, but not for traffic conditions (all traffic signs have to be unambiguous all the time). Also, these small touchscreens in a public area will eventually be smashed or stolen.
This is pretty awesome, I couldn't help but think of all those sorry people complaining about the germs on the screen itself.
Great innovation.
We need video games at all street corners? Look up and view life!
This also gives pedestrians a fun alternative to jay walking.
That last face it's perfect for a meme.
Similar to queue theory in stores. Nice
Sorry to be an asshat, but isn't this thing incredibly old? I'm getting a strong déjà vu feeling.