(11-26-2018, 03:01 PM)panamaniac Wrote:(11-26-2018, 10:58 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Pedestrians, like drivers, and cyclists, and all other human beings, are far more likely to follow the rules when the rules make sense and accommodate the common use cases. If the rules aren't being followed by most people, the design probably hasn't made the rules clear, or they don't make any sense.
Or they are simply inconvenient.
"Hey folks! OK, we've got to design this station. Now, we've got a bit of an awkward challenge here: as it's lining up, it looks like we're going to have to compromise something. Either safety, or extra width to the Duke intersection, and you know what that means: cost."
"Can't compromise on cost."
"Nope."
"But hang on-- don't you think we should design this thing the way that people will naturally be inclined to use it?"
"Are you kidding? We can't afford that. Why don't we put up a sign?"
"Yeah! People read signs. Signs are great. If we tell them don't do something, they won't do it."
"... Hang on a sec. Are we talking about the same people that inhabit this planet? The ones that don't read signs? The ones who will kill a green space with their feet to shorten their walk by 5 seconds? The ones who don't follow speed limit signs, school zone signs, still drive the wrong way on Erb St., or who get lost despite big directional signs all over the place? Those people?"
"So?"
"So?! What you're saying is, instead of designing this station for the way that people are going to naturally use it, you want to change the very nature of society itself in order to fit the design?"
"Look, if they're not going to read the signs..."
"It just seems to me that if you want a particular outcome, you'd recognize human nature in your design process."
"Well, all the extra cost is inconvenient. So we'll put up a sign."
etc.