7 ms·

Agreed. The traffic light paradigm that I've seen popping up more often (which really bothers me) is the red left turn arrow. Light's green, no oncoming traffic

by lunias 7y ago

Agreed. The traffic light paradigm that I've seen popping up more often (which really bothers me) is the red left turn arrow. Light's green, no oncoming traffic; but can't make a very safe left because there's a red arrow staring back at me.

C1sc0cat 7y ago
This where you need filter signals
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
A red left arrow is just the state/municipality telling you you're too stupid to make the decision yourself. I'm a big fan of the "green for a few seconds then flashing yellow" arrow.
- lunias 7y ago
  Seems like the only possible reason to me... sadly we live in a society that caters to the lowest common denominator rather than demanding and rewarding excellence. I worry for future generations. When I lived in Tucson AZ almost every light was set up for lagging left turns. Where you can go when it's safe, but in the event of heavy traffic you'd be able to count on having a green arrow to empty the left turn lane - worked great!
  - magduf 7y ago
    >sadly we live in a society that caters to the lowest common denominator rather than demanding and rewarding excellence You can't demand and reward excellence with car driving, because by assuming that people are all highly competent, you'll end up with lots of fatal crashes because of all the people who aren't competent. You can only assume car drivers are competent in societies where there's plenty of options for people who don't or can't drive, and America made the decision to not be such a society, so everyone has to be able to drive, even if they're an idiot.
    - lunias 7y ago
      I don't think that we have to assume competence when we have a system in place for issuing licenses, but you do have a point about people needing access to transportation. I do believe that any real solution would have to provide reasonable alternatives for people who do not meet the requirements. I also don't feel like the bar has to be raised much with regard to the licensing, but currently (and I believe knowledge of this to be reflected in some patterns of traffic control) the bar is clear-able by all with little to no competence check.
      - magduf 7y ago
        >I do believe that any real solution would have to provide reasonable alternatives for people who do not meet the requirements. Sorry, but that's completely impossible. You simply cannot have a spread-out, car-based society with "reasonable alternatives" for people who can't drive, unless perhaps you're going to heavily subsidize Uber and Lyft. Buses and trains don't work well in suburbs; trains only make sense with enough density to have enough ridership, and buses only make sense to fill in where train lines don't exist. In the suburbs, people stuck taking the bus get penalized with ridiculously long transit times, because the bus takes a long, circuitous route, only comes once or twice an hour, etc. That isn't a "reasonable alternative" when people with a car get get there in 10 minutes or less. So you have two choices: a society like Germany's where at least in urban areas it's easy to get around without a car, and then you can have a very high competency requirement for car drivers; or a society like America's, where the whole society is designed for cars (except for a small handful of urban cores) and you have to have a car to achieve a middle-class existence, so you cannot have a high competency requirement because otherwise you are restricting peoples' right to movement and travel.
        lunias 7y ago
        Offering reasonable alternatives is impossible? Why can't we begin to restructure our society to be more like, in your example; Germany, so that it is possible? Just because there are steps to providing alternatives doesn't make their eventual existence impossible, right?
  - scott_s 7y ago
    > sadly we live in a society that caters to the lowest common denominator rather than demanding and rewarding excellence. I find that an odd perspective on successful public safety rules and policies with the aim of reducing serious injury and death during a dangerous activity.
    - cgriswald 7y ago
      If they were serious about improving safety they’d have stricter licensing requirements. A one-legged turkey can probably get licensed in the states I’ve lived in. Once he gets it, it’s his for life. No need to prove he’s kept up his knowledge and skill. He just needs to take the occasional eye test. I see frequent conversations on Nextdoor about traffic laws where people are getting very basic stuff just plain wrong. Some of that could be explained by people moving here from other states, but it’s usually stuff in the driver’s handbook and in the worst case just doing a search of the vehicle code will give you the answer.
    - lunias 7y ago
      I think we'd see much greater reduction of serious injury and death by implementing stricter requirements and better training than simply doing our best after the fact to make sure everything is idiot-proof. A proactive approach rather than a reactive one.
  - wbronitsky 7y ago
    I’m not sure there is a ton of utility in complaining about societal stupidity, right? How does complaining that people don’t follow rules help us be safer? What would you propose as an alternative to “cater[ing] to the lowest common denominator” for public health and safety issues?
    - lunias 7y ago
      I'm not intending to complain, just presenting a viewpoint that minimum requirements are okay when it comes to regulation of shared resources, like the road. I don't believe that the requirements should be lowered beyond a reasonable level to cater to the incapable. I'd prefer a society which invested more in training and education as a form of harm prevention than implementing rules which reduce harm at the expense of the trained individual. Specifically related to driving: I believe that the licensing requirements should be slightly higher and that more should be done to guard against bad driving and not just illegal driving. E.g. I've never seen anyone get a ticket for getting on the highway going a third of the speed of traffic, but that's certainly dangerous. Instead, people get tickets for exceeding a limit set by the capabilities of the lowest common denominator by a small percentage regardless of conditions (often not particularly dangerous - not an excuse for reckless driving, of course). I simply think that there are better solutions. For one, public transportation.
ken 7y ago
Explanation, for those who don’t understand the problem: in some states, like New York, a red arrow is different than a red circle in that it prohibits turn-on-red. In other states, like Washington, the red arrow is equivalent to the red circle. We even have left-turn-on-red, so (unless you’re stuck behind an out-of-towner) this tends to be much less of an issue.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  The variety in individual state traffic light rules is fascinating, and something that certainly doesn't help for US travelers. Some states are left-turn-on-red, others are not, telling which is which is not always obvious. (For instance, Kentucky is no left-turn-on-red [either red arrow or full red; mostly the state doesn't use red arrows because they'd be redundant in that case], but allows for left-turn-may-yield on flashing yellow/amber.)
- andrewmunsell 7y ago
  For those Washingtonians that didn't know about left-on-red (I didn't before a couple weeks ago), you can turn left on red (or a red arrow) as long as it's from a one- or two-way street onto a one-way street (or freeway on-ramp), after a stop and if it's clear. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20181101-01/?p=100115 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20181101-01/?p=10... https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.055 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.055 I've never done it myself and don't intend to start since I think it's a bit obscure and I don't want to argue with a cop about it if I get pulled over.
fma 7y ago
For this scenario, I've seen new lights have the left turn arrow blinks. It lets you know you can turn left if it's safe to do so. It took a while to get used to because in the past there simply just won't be any signal, to imply you can go if you want.
- lilott8 7y ago
  I've really loathed my time driving in socal coming from the midwest. The idea that I cannot turn left on green is one of the more appalling "features" of traffic management here (the way the lights work, in general is abhorrent). But slowly, throughout socal, I've seen the flashing yellow left-turn arrow; a subtle change to the UX that I think is brilliant and should be adopted everywhere.
- bradstewart 7y ago
  They've started putting these (blinking yellow arrows for non-protected left turns) all over Austin. Confused the heck out of me at first as well.
CaliforniaKarl 7y ago
If I remember correctly, in Southern California, some intersections have an additional left-turn arrow which flashes yellow, indicating that you may make the left turn if there is no oncoming traffic. It's a separate light to make the flashing-yellow to solid-yellow transition clearer.
triceratops 7y ago
Ontario solves that by having there be a left green arrow + regular green light. The left green arrow indicates a protected left but you are also free to make an unprotected left on the regular green light, once the left green is off.
- toomanybeersies 7y ago
  Australia and New Zealand have the same (except on the right turn arrow because we drive on the left). I always thought this was normal. If the right turn arrow is green you have right of way, if it's red you must stop, and if it's not illuminated you give way to oncoming traffic and turn when safe.

by lunias 7y ago

C1sc0cat 7y ago

This where you need filter signals

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

A red left arrow is just the state/municipality telling you you're too stupid to make the decision yourself. I'm a big fan of the "green for a few seconds then flashing yellow" arrow.

lunias 7y ago
Seems like the only possible reason to me... sadly we live in a society that caters to the lowest common denominator rather than demanding and rewarding excellence. I worry for future generations. When I lived in Tucson AZ almost every light was set up for lagging left turns. Where you can go when it's safe, but in the event of heavy traffic you'd be able to count on having a green arrow to empty the left turn lane - worked great!
- magduf 7y ago
  >sadly we live in a society that caters to the lowest common denominator rather than demanding and rewarding excellence You can't demand and reward excellence with car driving, because by assuming that people are all highly competent, you'll end up with lots of fatal crashes because of all the people who aren't competent. You can only assume car drivers are competent in societies where there's plenty of options for people who don't or can't drive, and America made the decision to not be such a society, so everyone has to be able to drive, even if they're an idiot.
  - lunias 7y ago
    I don't think that we have to assume competence when we have a system in place for issuing licenses, but you do have a point about people needing access to transportation. I do believe that any real solution would have to provide reasonable alternatives for people who do not meet the requirements. I also don't feel like the bar has to be raised much with regard to the licensing, but currently (and I believe knowledge of this to be reflected in some patterns of traffic control) the bar is clear-able by all with little to no competence check.
    - magduf 7y ago
      >I do believe that any real solution would have to provide reasonable alternatives for people who do not meet the requirements. Sorry, but that's completely impossible. You simply cannot have a spread-out, car-based society with "reasonable alternatives" for people who can't drive, unless perhaps you're going to heavily subsidize Uber and Lyft. Buses and trains don't work well in suburbs; trains only make sense with enough density to have enough ridership, and buses only make sense to fill in where train lines don't exist. In the suburbs, people stuck taking the bus get penalized with ridiculously long transit times, because the bus takes a long, circuitous route, only comes once or twice an hour, etc. That isn't a "reasonable alternative" when people with a car get get there in 10 minutes or less. So you have two choices: a society like Germany's where at least in urban areas it's easy to get around without a car, and then you can have a very high competency requirement for car drivers; or a society like America's, where the whole society is designed for cars (except for a small handful of urban cores) and you have to have a car to achieve a middle-class existence, so you cannot have a high competency requirement because otherwise you are restricting peoples' right to movement and travel.
      - lunias 7y ago
        Offering reasonable alternatives is impossible? Why can't we begin to restructure our society to be more like, in your example; Germany, so that it is possible? Just because there are steps to providing alternatives doesn't make their eventual existence impossible, right?
- scott_s 7y ago
  > sadly we live in a society that caters to the lowest common denominator rather than demanding and rewarding excellence. I find that an odd perspective on successful public safety rules and policies with the aim of reducing serious injury and death during a dangerous activity.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    If they were serious about improving safety they’d have stricter licensing requirements. A one-legged turkey can probably get licensed in the states I’ve lived in. Once he gets it, it’s his for life. No need to prove he’s kept up his knowledge and skill. He just needs to take the occasional eye test. I see frequent conversations on Nextdoor about traffic laws where people are getting very basic stuff just plain wrong. Some of that could be explained by people moving here from other states, but it’s usually stuff in the driver’s handbook and in the worst case just doing a search of the vehicle code will give you the answer.
  - lunias 7y ago
    I think we'd see much greater reduction of serious injury and death by implementing stricter requirements and better training than simply doing our best after the fact to make sure everything is idiot-proof. A proactive approach rather than a reactive one.
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  I’m not sure there is a ton of utility in complaining about societal stupidity, right? How does complaining that people don’t follow rules help us be safer? What would you propose as an alternative to “cater[ing] to the lowest common denominator” for public health and safety issues?
  - lunias 7y ago
    I'm not intending to complain, just presenting a viewpoint that minimum requirements are okay when it comes to regulation of shared resources, like the road. I don't believe that the requirements should be lowered beyond a reasonable level to cater to the incapable. I'd prefer a society which invested more in training and education as a form of harm prevention than implementing rules which reduce harm at the expense of the trained individual. Specifically related to driving: I believe that the licensing requirements should be slightly higher and that more should be done to guard against bad driving and not just illegal driving. E.g. I've never seen anyone get a ticket for getting on the highway going a third of the speed of traffic, but that's certainly dangerous. Instead, people get tickets for exceeding a limit set by the capabilities of the lowest common denominator by a small percentage regardless of conditions (often not particularly dangerous - not an excuse for reckless driving, of course). I simply think that there are better solutions. For one, public transportation.

ken 7y ago

Explanation, for those who don’t understand the problem: in some states, like New York, a red arrow is different than a red circle in that it prohibits turn-on-red. In other states, like Washington, the red arrow is equivalent to the red circle. We even have left-turn-on-red, so (unless you’re stuck behind an out-of-towner) this tends to be much less of an issue.

WorldMaker 7y ago
The variety in individual state traffic light rules is fascinating, and something that certainly doesn't help for US travelers. Some states are left-turn-on-red, others are not, telling which is which is not always obvious. (For instance, Kentucky is no left-turn-on-red [either red arrow or full red; mostly the state doesn't use red arrows because they'd be redundant in that case], but allows for left-turn-may-yield on flashing yellow/amber.)
andrewmunsell 7y ago
For those Washingtonians that didn't know about left-on-red (I didn't before a couple weeks ago), you can turn left on red (or a red arrow) as long as it's from a one- or two-way street onto a one-way street (or freeway on-ramp), after a stop and if it's clear. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20181101-01/?p=100115 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20181101-01/?p=10... https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.055 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.055 I've never done it myself and don't intend to start since I think it's a bit obscure and I don't want to argue with a cop about it if I get pulled over.

fma 7y ago

For this scenario, I've seen new lights have the left turn arrow blinks. It lets you know you can turn left if it's safe to do so. It took a while to get used to because in the past there simply just won't be any signal, to imply you can go if you want.

lilott8 7y ago
I've really loathed my time driving in socal coming from the midwest. The idea that I cannot turn left on green is one of the more appalling "features" of traffic management here (the way the lights work, in general is abhorrent). But slowly, throughout socal, I've seen the flashing yellow left-turn arrow; a subtle change to the UX that I think is brilliant and should be adopted everywhere.
bradstewart 7y ago
They've started putting these (blinking yellow arrows for non-protected left turns) all over Austin. Confused the heck out of me at first as well.

CaliforniaKarl 7y ago

If I remember correctly, in Southern California, some intersections have an additional left-turn arrow which flashes yellow, indicating that you may make the left turn if there is no oncoming traffic. It's a separate light to make the flashing-yellow to solid-yellow transition clearer.

triceratops 7y ago

Ontario solves that by having there be a left green arrow + regular green light. The left green arrow indicates a protected left but you are also free to make an unprotected left on the regular green light, once the left green is off.

toomanybeersies 7y ago
Australia and New Zealand have the same (except on the right turn arrow because we drive on the left). I always thought this was normal. If the right turn arrow is green you have right of way, if it's red you must stop, and if it's not illuminated you give way to oncoming traffic and turn when safe.