Once I was walking in downtown Ashwaubenon. In actual reality Ashwaubenon had no downtown per se but it did have a lot of traffic and correspondingly complex traffic signals. Several pedestrians were crossing a major side street along one of the 2 primary commercial streets in the business district. In keeping with the popularity among traffic engineers at that time for encumbering pedestrians the signals provided a "walk" signal which would only turn on if explicitly requested by pressing a call button.
One of the other pedestrians pressed the button. This incited his companion to make fun of him. "Do you need help crossing the street?" the companion asked.
At the time I felt vicariously insulted because I too press the "Press Button for Walk Signal" button at crossings configured in this manner just like a good little boy. And why is this stranger denigrating the very course of action I would have chosen? And which I did choose at other times and other crossings? Provided the signal request signal was functioning properly and the physical button could be seen and approached from the walkway (as oppsed to being set several feet away behind a windrow of plowed snow or a muddy puddle -- as is frequently the case).
Afterward I realized that the campanion wholly miscontrued the proper purpose and function of the "walk" signal. The reason pedestrians are asked to flag their crossing is not primarily to help the pedestrians to cross the street. The primary purpose is to assist the drivers crossing the cross walks.
In actual reality the drivers have the responsibility to see and yield to the people walking in the crosswalk. Given the presence of multiple lanes of vehicular traffic it is often difficult for drivers to meet this obligation effectively. The signal adaptations are intended to assist the driver more than the pedestrian to cross the street safely and legally.
Some other crossings are more clear about this. They are equipped with flashing yellow lights which say to the drivers, "Look! Look! People may be crossing the street and you may need to see and yield to them before continuing on your way." The companion might easily have said, "How noble of you to help these drivers spot their responsibility and live up to it!"
The crossing in my example was perhaps designed less clearly. In practice the signals there witheld the "walk" indicator so that the right to the street was transfered from the walkers to the motorists. It is easy in that setting to misconstrue the purpose as the ridiculer of my story did. Stealing someone's rights but returning some on request should not be seen as magnanimity but often it masquerades as such. There I would be muttering, "The Village may be hiding your duty to me by how they signalized this crossing but I am going to be as clear about taking my right back from you as I am can be."
At a pedestrian crossing, as at so many places, the actual reality game degenerates into an investigation of how to help some players, usually those in automobiles, either to follow or to bypass the rules of fairness. The best play for traffic engineers is always to help with the implementation of fairness.