It’s mainly because it puts the responsibility on the victim rather than on fixing the infrastructure around it or actually policing bad behaviour from drivers. And that it also sends the signal that walking isn’t safe and that cars own the road, rather than the other way around.
Cities often implement “solutions” like this, not because they are the best solution, but because it’s one that costs the least and doesn’t impact drivers at all. Rather than the actual solutions such as:
Lower speed limits (30 km/h or less)
Protected intersections
Traffic calming such as narrow lanes, bollards, etc
Smarter signaling systems that keep pedestrians and cyclists moving quickly and protected
Protected bike and pedestrian paths so people are kept away from cars altogether
Limits on car/truck size (and hood height in particular)
Repealing dangerous traffic laws like “right on red”
It’s mainly because it puts the responsibility on the victim rather than on fixing the infrastructure around it or actually policing bad behaviour from drivers. And that it also sends the signal that walking isn’t safe and that cars own the road, rather than the other way around.
Cities often implement “solutions” like this, not because they are the best solution, but because it’s one that costs the least and doesn’t impact drivers at all. Rather than the actual solutions such as: