Over the course of many years, without making any great fuss about it, the authorities in New York disabled most of the control buttons that once operated pedestrian-crossing lights in the city.By 2004, fewer than 750 of 3,250 such buttons remained functional.The city government did not, however, take the disabled buttons away—signaling countless fingers to futile pressing.
Initially, the buttons survived because of the cost of removing them.But it turned out that even inoperative buttons serve a purpose.Pedestrians who press a button are less likely to cross before the green man appears, says Tal Oron-Gilad of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev,in Israel.
Inoperative buttons produce such beneficial effects because people like an impression of control over systems they are using, says Eytan Adar, an expert on human-computer interaction at the University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.Dr Adar notes that his students commonly design software with a clickable "save" button that has no role other than to reassure those users who are unaware that their keystrokes are saved automatically anyway.
That is one view.But, at road crossings at least, disabled buttons may also have a darker side.Ralf Risser, head of FACTUM, a Viennese institute that studies psychological factors in traffic systems, reckons that pedestrians' awareness of their existence, and consequent resentment at the deception, now outweighs the benefits.
Something which happened in Lebanon supports that view.Crossing buttons introduced in Beirut between 2005 and 2009 proved a failure.Pedestrians wanted them to summon a "walk" signal immediately, rather than at the next appropriate phase in the traffic-light cycle, as is normal.The authorities therefore disabled them, putting walk signals on a preset schedule instead.Word spread that button-pressing had become pointless.The consequent frustration increased the amount of people who ignore the traffic lights while crossing the road, says Zaher Massaad, formerly a senior traffic engineer for the Lebanese government.
Beirut's disabled buttons are, says Mr Massaad,now being removed.They should all be gone within three years.New York has similarly stripped crossings of non-functioning buttons, says Josh Benson, the city's deputy commissioner for traffic operations, though it does retain about 100 working ones.These are in places where pedestrians are sufficiently rare that stopping the traffic automatically is unjustified.However, internet debate about disabled buttons has become so common that doubt, although misguided,seems to be growing about even these functioning buttons' functionality.This suspicion, says Mr Benson, has spread beyond New York, to include places such as Los Angeles, where almost all the crossing buttons have always worked, at least during off-peak hours.
Truth be told, though, the end may be near for all road-crossing buttons, disabled or not.At an increasing number of junctions, those waiting to cross can be detected, and even counted, using cameras or infrared and microwave detectors.Dynniq, a Dutch firm, recently equipped an intersection in Tilburg with a system that recognizes special apps on the smartphones of the elderly or disabled, and provides those people with 5 to 12 extra seconds to cross.That really will be pleasing.
|
|
A.notes that the cost of removing the buttons may pose challeges to the authorities. |
|
41.Tal Oron-Gilad |
B.believes that doubt about the disabled buttons has extended to more places. |
|
42.Eytan Adar |
C.assumes that the anger caused by disabled buttons led to a rise in people who cross without paying attention to the traffic. |
|
43.Ralf Risser |
D.remarks that pressing a button can reduce the probability of crossing the road illegally. |
|
44.Zaher Massaad |
E.says that there are places where pedestrians are rare and stopping the traffic automatically is unjustified. |
|
45.Josh Benson |
F.points out that people's consciousness of the disabled button, as well as the anger followed, causes more harm than good. |
|
|
G.thinks that the software designed by his students often offers a "save" button, which, in fact, is of no use. |
A．notes that the cost of removing the buttons may pose challeges to the authorities.
B．believes that doubt about the disabled buttons has extended to more places.
C．assumes that the anger caused by disabled buttons led to a rise in people who cross without paying attention to the traffic.
D．remarks that pressing a button can reduce the probability of crossing the road illegally.
E．says that there are places where pedestrians are rare and stopping the traffic automatically is unjustified.
F．points out that people's consciousness of the disabled button, as well as the anger followed, causes more harm than good.
G．thinks that the software designed by his students often offers a "save" button, which, in fact, is of no use.
