5 ms·
The set up described in the article is actually equivalent to "come to full stop, then right turn only". You cannot replace the light with a sign because by l
by tici_88 10y ago
The set up described in the article is actually equivalent to "come to full stop, then right turn only".
You cannot replace the light with a sign because by law traffic lights have higher precedence that traffic signs. This is for failover reasons (when traffic light is broken, no electricity etc.) So a sign on an intersection can be rendered void/meaningless if the traffic light is operational.
Having traffic lights show the same light is not that unheard of as the article makes it sound. I visited a part of Europe where right turns on intersections always showed blinking yellow light. This is equivalent to "turn right, but yield first"
I understand it can be confusing if you are coming from the US system though. The European system is highly standardized for use in all kinds of driving situations (like places with unreliable electricity), the drawback is that it can get a bit technical at times.
- lisper 10y ago> So a sign on an intersection can be rendered void/meaningless if the traffic light is operational. But that's a moot point if the light isn't there in the first place. I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it, this light is stupid. What is needed is simply a pair of signs: STOP and RIGHT TURN ONLY.
- thomasmarcelis 10y agoIt is mandatory for there to be a light at the intersection by law
- lisper 10y agoYes, I get that. But it's a stupid law, and it should be changed. Traffic laws are not handed down by the gods.
- froh42 10y agoYes great idea. Build a new rule into a nation-wide law just to solve a problem that needs no solving as "red light with static green right arrow" is a typical sight over here in Germany and drivers DO understand it. It would be much better to change traffic la nation-wide so we can get rid of this ONE traffic light in Germany. Isn't it?
- iopq 10y agoYes, that light is costing tax payers every year to operate it. The law should be changed so that there is no need to do this.
- vidarh 10y agoHow much do you think it will cost to verify that such a legal change will not have unintended side effects?
- germanier 10y agoChanging the law and checking correct enforcement costs way more in people hours than the cost of operating a single traffic light. People underestimate the cost of regulation. Also, a consistent and simple set of rules should always be preferred and causes less human errors.
- dagss 10y agoChanging the law costs a lot, lot more you know..
- massysett 10y agoYes. It's stupid for a law to vest absolutely no discretion in the engineers so they may adapt to peculiar local situations.
- sksksk 10y agoThis light is an at intersection, the other three roads leading to the intersection have traffic lights too. If there is a power cut, then the other three roads will have no lights, drivers there will treat the intersection with one set of rules. Whereas the driver on this road with a sign will treat the intersection with another, potentially causing an accident.
- lisper 10y agoThere is no more possibility of an accident with a stop sign than with an always-red light because the rules for both are exactly the same: stop, and proceed only when there is no conflicting traffic.
- tici_88 10y ago"But that's a moot point if the light isn't there in the first place." When I said "traffic light" I meant the entire set of traffic lights of the intersection. You can't have just one lane without traffic light and all the others with. It would be highly confusing, also probably against the road laws. The point of the traffic light taking precedence over road sign is actually part of the rules of the road. It is also required knowledge for driver exams.
- lisper 10y ago> You can't have just one lane without traffic light and all the others with. Of course you can. > It would be highly confusing Why? > also probably against the road laws. Laws can be changed. The fact that "it's the law" is a stupid reason to keep doing something that doesn't otherwise make sense. Germans of all people should understand this. (And BTW, I am German.)
- koliber 10y agoThere is a sign in Germany that indicated "must turn right". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Germany#/media/File:Zeichen_209-20.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Germany#/media/F... Combine that with a stop sign to force a stop and yield. It feels like this would solve the situation without the need for traffic lights. I'm sure I'm missing something though.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- RugnirViking 10y agoFrom what I have gathered, the reason is that all sides of a junction must have traffic lights or none. Because traffic lights are needed at the other entrances, this one is installed to comply.