Talk:Traffic light/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

France

If the page is to be reorganized, can I suggest mention of the following, from France:

Traffic signals are never repeated at the other side of the intersection in France. Drivers in most parts of the world (Ireland, UK, USA, Australia - my experience only) who are first in the queue at a red light are used to being able to look across the intersection and seeing the light that applies to them displayed. This is not the case in France.

Why do they do this? It does make absolutely clear the point at which a driver must stop. It also removes any confusion that can occur at oddly shaped junctions where some drivers look at the wrong light.

It also removes the following problem: at some T-junctions in UK, I have seen drivers coming from the minor road onto the through-road and stopping because they see the red-light meant for drivers on the through-road. They are incorrect in doing this but would be correct if in France.

It is also useful in towns and cities where there are several junctions spaced close together.

It has disadvantages though: if turning left in France and you move into the junction waiting for a gap in the traffic to turn, you have no way of knowing when the green changes to amber and red.

The same is true in heavy traffic. If you edge past the lights into the junction going straight on you don't know when the lights change.

The following help this situation:

1. A second set of traffic lights is always displayed at a lower level for the driver at the front of the queue. This solves one problem but it does mean that the driver is looking to the right before moving off. I much prefer looking straight ahead to see any potential hazards.

2. For left-turning traffic, there is sometimes a light displayed to indicate when traffic coming in the opposite direction has a red-light and thus when it is safe to turn. This light is in the form of a red cross. When lit, opposing traffic has red light. When not lit, opposing traffic has green light. David in dublin 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Title of Article

The correct term is a Traffic Signal, not Traffic Light. This is because they provide a signal for drivers to obey rather than providing light for illumination (being able to see). The term written in UK law is Traffic Light Signal and they are also known as Automated Traffic Signals, the use of 'Traffic Light' is not technically correct and should be discouraged.

194.129.64.35 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Tom 17:36, 15 August 2007 (GMT)

I have placed #REDIRECT [[Traffic Light]] {{R from alternative name}} at the locations you mentioned. But based on the number of names for them around the world, IMHO, it is not cause for Moving the page. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit by Epicentre

I just reverted this edit by Epicentre as I cannot follow its rationale. Firstly, by the lingo used in my area (so perhaps it's different elsewhere), a malfunction results in flashing amber; but a failure results in a dark signal. Secondly, if all sides are expected to give way, what would be the point of adding a stop sign? How would the approaches without the stop sign -- whom are not supposed to stop -- know that the other approaches have the stop sign? Is a sign provided which indicates that they may travel through without stop on flashing amber? Are varying colors used in each direction instead of signs, as in N.America where flashing amber indicates a vehicles may proceed with caution and flashing red indicates a vehicle must stop? And what happens if the signal is dark: do the duties of motorists change as compared with a flashing signal? If you can provide references, that may help in clearing up my confusion. Lastly: it is not advisable to mark information additions as minor edits. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 11:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what traffic rules are like in Israel but the purpose of a stop sign would seem obvious to me. I'm aware the US uses stop signs in a slightly funny way (4 way intersections each with a stop sign) but AFAIK from the stop sign article, this is rare in most of the rest of the world. At least in the commonwealth and apparently in a lot of the rest of Europe, stop signs are used sparingly. Generally, if you have a stop sign you give way to all traffic except traffic without a stop sign. So for example, if the traffic lighted intersection had a stop sign and the traffic lights were broken then I would presume anyone with the stop sign would give way to everyone else. For an example of how stop signs often work see [1]. AFAIK although some of the give way rules in New Zealand are somewhat unusual (specifically in the UK, Australia people turning left usually have the right of way), the actual stop sign, give way sign etc rules are fairly common in much of the commonwealth and potentially much of Europe as well. Nil Einne 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lloydminster

Okay, so in Lloydminster I can be waiting at a red signal according to Alberta's traffic laws going one way and Saskatchewan's going the other way. Why is this relevant? If Alberta permitted right-on-red and Saskatchewan didn't, for example, I can see why it might make a difference. Merely talking about an issue of the jurisdiction in which any cases arising from any crashes might be heard, in one set of junctions in one town, seems a little irrelevant to a general article on traffic lights. Marnanel 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lloydminster is also included in talk above in section 17... I really don't think this city's traffic signals are worth mentioning in the article. The article is already very long and I don't think examples of traffic signals is required. While each province may have their own legislation for this, so do the municipalities and whether they are on the Alberta or Sask. side, they're still in the same municipality. I just don't see why it's notable for an encyclopedic article. --nobuyuki219.108.24.231 07:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur. This is not exactly very notable, or interesting, or relevant. --Coolcaesar 07:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

see also

not sure if or how relevent itis so I thought I would at least bring it up here ... Traffic Signal Operations Specialist. looks intresting and somewhat relevent. anyone know more about this ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Flashing green light

Under the section Turning signals and rules they mention: "In a fourth type, sometimes seen at intersections in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, there is no dedicated left-turn lamp per se. Instead, the normal green lamp flashes rapidly, indicating permission to go straight as well as make a left turn in front of opposing traffic, which is being held by a steady red lamp."

I would just like to note that it's not only in Ontario and Quebec. They also have "flashing green" in Halifax, Nova Scotia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.88.11 (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The usual U.S. centric bias.

If the first traffic lights were in the U.K. how are 'modern' traffic lights a U.S. invention? Firstly the design of traffic lights has been in a constant state of flux since their invention in the England. By adding the weasel word 'modern' the author is trying to assert that anything prior to the particular U.S. example quoted is not 'modern'

Truly 'modern' computer controlled lights with radio telemetry for emergency vehicles are what I would call 'modern' not the author's antiquated American example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I read it as basically saying that the first traffic lights looking something like the current ones tend to were installed in the U.S. They were predated by British lights, but the British ones were more like semaphores, and less like the current 3-lights-in-a-row design. The referencing in this section is weak all around, though, so we should probably find some reliable book on the subject and follow what it says. --Delirium (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)