
German traffic light stays red for 28 years (2015) - curtis
https://www.thelocal.de/20150615/there-is-a-light-that-never-goes-out
======
rurban
I know this light personally. I live there. It is no problem for the casual
driver, as Dresden is one of those rare german towns with US "Rechtsabbieger"
rules. You may turn right even with red lights. And the german law clearly
states if one entries to a crossing has lights, all others have to get lights
also. This is the only case in Germany where this law makes no sense.

But the best is the last sentence: They do change all the green and yellow
light bulbs also in their regular maintenance schedule. The justification goes
like this: Bulbs mostly wear due to hours in usage, yes. Red and Yellow are
not used, so should not wear, and thus should not be replaced. But hours can
not be the only cause for problems, and while we are there and there's a
budget for replacement, we'll do it all together. Not really a just technical
justification, just a practical one.

We do the same in software also all the time. There are two principles: 1\.
Make minimal changes to cause only minimal effect. 2\. Harmonize your changes
to avoid unnecessary asymmetries. They went with 2. You can fight the system,
or you can live with it. In this case there is no reason to rock the boat.

[Update:] The lawful alternative would have been to close this crossing for
the Ziegelstraße into the Güntzstraße. People would have protested over this
sillyness. And Dresden has enough budget surplus to do such things. In fact
Dresden was very lucky in its real-estate deals, where they sold all of their
old residential apartment complexes to a US company Fortress for billions:
[http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/milliardendeal-dresden-
verk...](http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/milliardendeal-dresden-verkauft-
wohnungsbestand-und-wird-schuldenfrei-a-405194.html) Normally such deals turn
out bad and unprofitable, but in this case not. Both parties are happy.

~~~
timthelion
An aquantance of mine wrote a peice of software that looks at satelite
pictures of Prague at night and tells the city which street lights are out, so
they don't have to use a "regular replacement schedual" but only replace the
bulbs that need it. Could the same thing not be done using red-light cameras
and stop lights?

~~~
Spooky23
It might or might not. This is a costing exercise where you need the
understand the objective and cost factors.

If you have a strong requirement to avoid failure, proactive replacement let's
you optimize the unit cost of replacement because you can fully utilize the
crews and have no wastage.

If you dispatch reactively, you either have people sitting around waiting for
light bulbs to burn out or lightbulb replacement pulls crews off of other
work, impacting schedules.

~~~
thaumasiotes
...or you could hire contractors when you need to do bulb replacement? Then
you have full utilization while you're replacing bulbs, no one is idling on
your payroll while you're not, and no one gets pulled from their existing work
to do replacement.

~~~
jdmichal
... and the external contractor who you're pushing all that risk on will
charge you appropriately.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Sure, but they only receive the full amount of the risk you lose if you are
their only client. They're still cheaper than either solution I responded to.

------
curun1r
I feel like there's an analogy to software in this story. Someone put in a
hack that, while ugly, works. I'm sure many city planners over the years have
looked at it and thought it should be fixed. But when the current solution is
working, taking the time to do the necessary testing to ensure that a new,
cleaner solution works would be painful. So, 30 years later, the hack is still
in place.

I know I've come across the software equivalent of this many times in my life
as a developer. "Hmm...that's a really odd way of doing that, I should
refactor this. But I need to write a bunch of tests for this since the
original developer didn't write any. And am I really thinking through all the
possible use cases properly? Even if I am, this is now a 3-day estimate, which
means it will probably take 5 days, and all to "fix" something that's
technically working. That's a lot of risk/time commitment for very little
payout. Maybe I should just leave it be and move on to a project that's better
setup to succeed."

Yep...makes total sense that this light still exists. Still doesn't explain
why they replace the green and amber bulbs though...

~~~
nerthus
It is more like "convention over configuration". In fact, it isn't a hack. It
is the simple applyance of putting elements in a system, because of a
contract.

Another good analogy in software would be UX and style guides. You'd like the
user to have a consistent experience.

The replacement is like running a cron job to do some stuff and forget to
check if it makes sense. It can be done better, but on the other hand, it's
less complicated this way (and never change a running system).

This one red light has been removed btw. The street is a dead end towards the
intersection now. But you can find another one near Wasaplatz.

~~~
EugeneOZ
One more evidence that "convention over configuration" principle should be
avoided :)

~~~
golergka
I think it's evidence to the contrary. We only know how much one street light
cost; we don't know (from this article) how effective the overall system that
manages the whole country is. I can bet that because of these rules it's much
more effective then a system where every single streetlight has to be
considered and configured by a bureaucrat who makes an individual decision.

------
advisedwang
The traffic light:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0539102,13.7575856,3a,75y,71...](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0539102,13.7575856,3a,75y,71.03h,88.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scW7PqWjukB-
tqiTFHHMidA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

~~~
prance
That light is totally redundant. The white-on-blue right arrow as well as the
solid line in the middle of the street already mandate that only right turning
is allowed there.

~~~
Svip
Except you cannot have static signs from one direction, where the other
directions have traffic signals.

Someone else suggested a great programmer would have changed the rules, but
that would have just made the rules more complicated.

This solution is neat, because it keeps the basic rules simple while solving
the problem. And to most people, they will never notice it is a problem.

~~~
ben_bai
Until an attacker comes and "parks" in front of the red light blocking all the
traffic. There is no legal obligation to keep moving.

~~~
techdragon
The charge is usually "public nuisance" or the local jurisdictional
equivalent.

In case anyone is unfamiliar with the concept of public nuisance as a crime.
It's pretty simple, "things that cause significant enough trouble for other
people". Its the common sense escape hatch option for law enforcement being
unable to see any other crime.

~~~
majewsky
I would guess that it would be "Behinderung des Straßenverkehrs" (obstruction
of traffic).

------
ams6110
This is a light in Ft. Walton Beach Florida. I took a picture of it years ago
because I thought it was funny. It's on 35mm film in a box somewhere.... (the
linked image is not mine).

[http://www.funnysigns.net/files/never-turns-
green.jpg](http://www.funnysigns.net/files/never-turns-green.jpg)

~~~
dawnerd
You'd think they'd just put up a sign that says "right turn only" or similar.

~~~
ygra
That's quite unusual for an intersection that _visually_ can be traversed also
straight ahead to be right-turn only from one direction. There are such signs
(209-20), or arrows on the lane, but I'd imagine people to heed a stop light
more than such signage (purely from experience, many drivers ignore such
signs, and even those that don't often don't adhere to the rules by not using
turn signals).

Edit: Now that I've looked at the traffic light on Google StreetView, that
right-turn only sign _is_ also there. But of course, traffic lights take
precedence when they exist. The intersection is also marked in a way to really
discourage going straight (or left), but I'd still guess with only signs
there'd be a few people who actually tried doing that.

------
nevex
This article is from 2015 and noone seems to have mentioned yet that the light
got removed in 2016: [http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/ewiges-rot-an-
dresdn...](http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/ewiges-rot-an-dresdner-
ampel-hat-ein-ende-genommen-14435741.html)

------
sharpercoder
When I was about 15 years old, a friend tried to convince me a traffic light
in front of his house was always green. I never believed him. Fast forward 15
years later. I moved to an apartment, cycling past my friends house to go to
work. After a few weeks, I started to notice a traffic light which is always
green! It was the same light my friend told me about. I remembered.

It is here:
[https://goo.gl/maps/2cgcx1b92LL2](https://goo.gl/maps/2cgcx1b92LL2).
Streetview direct link:
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/52%C2%B000'00.9%22N+5%C2%B...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/52%C2%B000'00.9%22N+5%C2%B052'50.8%22E/@52.0002327,5.8806822,3a,75y,46.34h,87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slkaTropfTSDF9LePnooSlg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DlkaTropfTSDF9LePnooSlg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D234.67867%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d52.000242!4d5.880775?hl=en)

~~~
jobigoud
Seems to be for pedestrian crossing. Isn't there a push button on the pole?

------
peterkelly
I guess it's like the "no smoking" lights in airplanes. Even though they're
_always_ on (it's not like there's times during the flight when you can smoke
and other times when you can't), they serve as an important reminder, and
therefore have a purpose.

~~~
grecy
Of course, the lights used to go on and off when smoking on planes was
permitted.

I'm not 100% certain, but I'm willing to bet it's still permitted in some
countries.

~~~
sitepodmatt
In practice Air India seems to allow it, especially on the older jets and
longer flights. Unusally long lines immediately form at toilets and don't seem
to subside throughout a several hour flight. The smell of cigarette smoke is
attended to regularly with a good old spray of air freshener.

~~~
kid0m4n
What???? I doubt this is true. Smoking has never been allowed in numerous Air
India flights I have taken.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Agreed. I've taken various internal flights in India, Vietnam and the
Philippines and none of them have allowed smoking, officially or
"unofficially".

------
kyle-rb
This sounds like it could be straight out of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy.

~~~
chatwinra
Or Catch-22

~~~
sjcsjc
Or Yes, Minister

------
thought_alarm
I get why that road is signalled. It intersects right in the middle of another
signalled intersection.

But in my neck of the woods we'd probably show a green right arrow when
intersecting traffic from the left is stopped at a red light.

~~~
lb1lf
In some places (definitely in Norway) a green arrow doesn' just imply you can
turn right if safe; it tells you other traffic is halted and you've got the
intersection all to yourself.

Edit: ninja'd by runholm

~~~
mmarx
That's the situation in Germany as well.

------
peterburkimsher
Is it in the red light district?

(When I was a child, I actually thought that the meaning of that phrase was
related to traffic lights. I was so naïve.)

~~~
moioci
You probably thought that Roxanne was a traffic engineer.

~~~
bbcbasic
Sting was the pointy haired boss meddling and micromanaging in her project.

------
ryanjmo
I came across a light like this once and noted it. After some thought though I
realized that it actually makes perfect sense. The goal of the light is to
never let people go straight and people can only turn on a green arrow. It is
the only logical output for this goal as far as I can tell. If it were just a
red arrow and a green arrow, without a full red people may think they can go
straight, because there is no light preventing them explicitly. It's pretty
funny.

~~~
a_bonobo
Couldn't you combine a STOP sign with one of those 'turn only right' signs,
like this one?
[http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/95a9489a7d8b4c418cb6cfd3b6753295/r...](http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/95a9489a7d8b4c418cb6cfd3b6753295/right-
turn-only-road-sign-uk-e16jea.jpg)

~~~
kolinko
The street also has that (well, a triangle "yield, no stop necessary" sign).

The thing is, in Europe, you have priorities in traffic - first the lights,
when those are off/unavailable - the signs, and finally "the one on the right
goes first".

The rationale behind this intersection is that you need all the vehicles
obeying the same set of rules. So you can't have one car approaching the
intersection obeying the signs (because no lights on that road), and another
car obeying the traffic lights.

~~~
mc32
In that case a flashing yellow right arrow would make more sense than a solid
red light.

~~~
ThePadawan
Don't quote me on this, but I think drivers are allowed to drive on a flashing
yellow light without coming to a full stop, while this red light requires
drivers to come to a stop.

~~~
ygra
Flashing yellow means yield, indeed. However, if the traffic lights are off
the signs take precedence which in this case also just say yield. The red
light with the green arrow is a hack in that it allows the intersection to
work as intended, but the Stop part of it probably is not strictly necessary
here.

------
hermitdev
Ok, why not just put up signs saying "do not enter" and "right turn only"?
And, then, just have a signal for the assumed protected right-turn (Germans do
drive on the right, correct?)

This "solution" seems very confusing. In every US/Canadian jurisdiction I've
visited has nothing like this German solution. Just indicate with lights,
signage and road furniture that the particular route is not allowed. To
technically keep the route open, but prohibit by lights seems prone to
confusion, especially for individuals not from the area. Also, how do mapping
apps deal with this intersection (curious)? Do mapping apps properly route
through such an intersection?

(edit: clarity)

~~~
tici_88
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
> 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.

~~~
sksksk
This 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
There 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.

------
scarhill
This traffic light in Harrison, NY has been green for decades:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0142226,-73.7217408,3a,75y,1...](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0142226,-73.7217408,3a,75y,107.41h,91.22t,-4.1r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svoT-
mRiS1H3x4nXfyo05NA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I have been driving through there since
the late 70's and I'm pretty sure that the intersection configuration was in
place earlier than that. So it's likely that this light has been green for
over fifty years.

~~~
fl0wenol
I've been through there before and it makes sense. They want the whole
exchange signalized for consistency but that one lane's configuration means
it's protected.

I imagine you can make it red at the control box for an emergency or
construction; I wonder if that's ever happened.

------
quasimodem
How did it stay red during bulb replacement? Article is totally misleading!

~~~
ant6n
Also the article implies it's just on a very long 28 year cycle, but then it
says it never turns green. Which one is it?

------
golergka
When you have a steady, well working system and only one special case that
causes that system to waste resources, you don't put special if cases and
switches to optimize for this special case. Especially if it's one in a
million.

~~~
iopq
I object for having to pay for the green and yellow light bulbs. They should
be empty on purpose.

~~~
germanier
Then the crew changing the lights would need a second checklist. The chance
that they apply that wrong one to a regular intersection is not negligible.

~~~
iopq
If they're empty to begin with, new ones shouldn't be put in. How hard is
that?

~~~
germanier
It's harder than it looks. I see two possible interpretations of your
proposal:

a) Not change the worker's checklist. That would mean they should deviate from
the list, creating a dangerous precedent.

b) Adding another rule to the worker's checklist. Great, now they need to
check this for every single light they are working on, which means more work
(is that really cheaper than the bulbs even if it's only a few seconds per
light?) and more possibilities of doing mistakes.

Not to mention that the traffic light probably refuses to turn on when not all
lights are installed. That means the software needs to be changed. Yet another
possibility to introduce fatal mistakes at other intersections.

I prefer paying for a bulb every now and then to putting human lives at risk.
Note that changing something for this intersection means changing things for
_all_ intersections, including high-traffic complex ones.

------
stickfigure
Does it really cost ~500€ per month to run a single traffic light?

~~~
comboy
Assuming 100W light bulb and 0.3€/kWh cost, it's ~22€ for the electricity. So
I guess we're left with the maintenance. These guys have pretty decent hourly
rate even if light bulbs need to be changed every few months ;) But in all
seriousness it seems somewhat understandable. During all these years you may
need to change the pole, some elements, maybe repaint the pole, maintain cars
and equipment of these guys who change the bulbs and so on. Plus it seems
likely that it was calculated as city traffic light infrastructure expenses
divided by the number of traffic lights. Then you have some upgrades of
electronics, leds, counters or cameras in other parts of the city.

I'm not trying to say that governments spend money efficiently, just that the
figure may be not as ridiculous as it seems.

~~~
mcv
Who still uses bulbs for traffic lights these days? Here it's all LED. Cheaper
and much clearer. (The old bulb lights were sometimes really hard to see when
the sun is low behind you.)

~~~
ygra
Lost of places. Here it's a mixture of lightbulb and LED lights. Also LEDs may
be cheaper over time due to electricity costs, but the initial upgrade is
surely more expensive than a new bulb. Then there is the problem with snow not
melting and you don't know what maintenance contracts are there for bulb
replacement and how long those last.

------
chiph
I had a German colleague come to visit me in the US one time. When we went out
to lunch, and I made a "right on red after stop", he just about put his foot
through the floorboard trying to push his invisible brake pedal. German driver
training is very thorough. :)

------
mannigfaltig
I'm not quite understanding the reasoning behind this. It seems a stop sign
plus a "right turn only" sign would imply the same rule.

~~~
Smaug123
Because the regulations state they can't have an intersection controlled by
both signs and lights. The rest of the intersection is controlled by lights.

------
lsaferite
I'd just like to understand how on earth it costs 458€ per month to maintain
this single light?

Does anyone have some insight into that data point?

Edit: I know the 150k over 28 years number is a bit rounded, but even using
that it's 446/month or 14.60/day to run the light?!?

~~~
soundwave106
Googling, I've seen the rough figures from $1,000 to $10,000 (USD) a year to
maintain a traffic signal -- all over the place for sure, but the €5300/yr
cost doesn't appear to be that out of line. However I can't Google a really
good breakdown of costs.

My assumption is that the bigger percentage of that is maintenance. There are
three lights in the Google street view. Assuming these are old incandescent
bulbs and Germany's high kWh price, electricity costs would be roughly be
about €1500 _at most_ a year (assuming €0.35 per kWh, 150 watt bulbs, and 3
lights "always on"). Maybe add another €500 _at most_ for the controller
although it probably should cost less than that. (LED lights would drop this
part of the bill a lot, too.)

However, there is probably some maintenance costs for both the controller and
the light: changing all bulbs yearly (if incandescent), cleaning the bulb
lenses, controller maintenance (wiring checks, etc.), etc. I imagine that the
bulk of the costs would fall here: labor costs plus some equipment costs
(trucks, tools, etc.).

A)
[http://pugetsoundblogs.com/roadwarrior/2012/09/25/comparing-...](http://pugetsoundblogs.com/roadwarrior/2012/09/25/comparing-
costs-of-roundabouts-and-traffic-signals/) B)
[http://bmtsonline.com/sites/default/files/Reports%20and%20Do...](http://bmtsonline.com/sites/default/files/Reports%20and%20Documents/FINAL%20Traffic%20Signal%20Maintenance%20Consolidation%20Study.pdf)

~~~
lsaferite
Even if 2000/year is the base electricity cost, that still means it's costing
9.20/day in materials and labor for a single light. That still seems very
excessive to me.

------
JumpCrisscross
Let's assume a North-South/East-West intersection. Eastbound traffic (on the
Western road) sees this light.

If the Eastbound traffic can only go right, I presume the Westbound traffic
can only go left. (Otherwise the Eastbound traffic would be permitted to go
straight and/or left.) If that is true, then the Southbound traffic can only
go straight; no turns. (It follows that there is no Northbound traffic.)

In essence, three roads converge to one. If that's so, why is this an
intersection? Why not merge the roads or build a wall making incorrect
crossings or turns obvious?

------
mc32
Do they use steady red lights for all "right turn onlys" which on the other
end have opposing traffic (do not enter)? Or is this an exception to the right
turn only + do not enter at the other end? Harrison and 10th[1] in SF for
example.

[1][https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7714317,-122.4115453,3a,75y,...](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7714317,-122.4115453,3a,75y,57.41h,78.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFTZrWFsTzwS5ZGBBz5HIPA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

~~~
kuschku
Germany does not usually have "right turn only"s, at all. That’s the simple
answer – this traffic light is the only "right turn only" on a normal
intersection in Germany. (which is why it has its own wikipedia entry, and
website).

~~~
pluma
It does. "Right turns only" is a white bent arrow on a blue ground. But it
does not affect precedence like a red light with a green arrow does (or a stop
sign would for that matter). You often see it on T-junctions with one-way
roads.

~~~
kuschku
Yes, and no. That’s a right turn only at an uncontrolled intersection. Germany
has none at controlled intersections (those with traffic lights).

~~~
pluma
I could swear I've seen "right turn only" signs at controlled intersections
when coming off the Autobahn. I think it was for a right turn onto a B road.

------
blahedo
I wonder if this article (from 2015) has now become obsolete? I notice that
the OSM of that location[0] appears to indicate that Ziegelstraße now dead-
ends just before the relevant intersection, and the Bing satellite maps,
though difficult to interpret with all the tree cover, appear to match that.

[0]
[http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.05376/13.75783](http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.05376/13.75783)

~~~
arrrg
Yes, the road is now a dead end.

------
femto
Why does the signal include an amber and green light?

~~~
cperciva
Probably because including two unused bulbs is cheaper than custom-making a
single-bulb traffic light.

(Also, people who are used to seeing a set of three bulbs might not recognize
a single red light as being a traffic light at all.)

~~~
kuschku
Actually, it’s not that easy.

German traffic lights are a modular design, and ones with only two or one bulb
are common. (You can stick as many modules together as you wish, or remove
them)

~~~
pluma
That doesn't sound entirely true.

I've only seen one-bulb versions for flashing yellow lights (which are
sometimes used on crossings to indicate "pedestrians are crossing" at
difficult crossings, typically when more than two roads meet and the
pedestrians could easily be overlooked).

I've only seen two-light versions for pedestrians (i.e. red and green).

I think I've seen other one and two bulb versions on non-public roads (e.g.
industrial sites) but that's about it. I've never seen a version with four
bulbs.

And you make them sound more modular than they are: while the part containing
the bulb seems to be generally modular the case containing these modules is
generally fixed for a certain size. So adding or removing modules after they
are deployed is not as straightforward (except maybe for temporary traffic
lights).

I've actually seen the auditory clue box (whatever it's called -- the ticking
thing at crossings to help blind pedestrians cross safely) replace one of the
bulbs (on three-bulb lights where there is a redundant second red bulb)
instead of being added below the traffic light.

~~~
kuschku
Actually, I’ve got a few intersections right near me with such examples.

There’s a traffic light for the lane straight forward.

Directly next to it is one for those turning right.

The forward light has Red, Yellow and Green, the turn lane’s light has only
Yellow and Green (both with the arrow overlay).

At another one, there’s lights for busses added below or at the side of the
existing light, adding one, or two modules (below or at the side).

~~~
pluma
Where in Germany are you?

I forgot about turn lanes (they often omit the red light when the red phase
would be shared with the regular traffic light) but I've never seen bus
lights. Might be a regional thing.

------
dustedrob
"It's not a bug, it's a feature"

------
gambiting
Surely, a stop sign: [https://www.stickergenius.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/sto...](https://www.stickergenius.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/stop_sign_sheet.jpg)

Plus a "turn right only":
[http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/95a9489a7d8b4c418cb6cfd3b6753295/r...](http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/95a9489a7d8b4c418cb6cfd3b6753295/right-
turn-only-road-sign-uk-e16jea.jpg)

Would achieve the same effect? People would have to stop at the intersection,
and then they can only turn right. Same as red light+green right arrow.

edit: sorry, yes, I now understand - it has to be a traffic light because all
other sides have traffic lights.

~~~
pluma
Presumably you could modify the way the road intersects to make it an inlet
(which automatically has lower precedence regardless of lights) but that'd
probably just be as confusing.

------
ben_bai
There is a denial-of-service attack possible.

Red light with green arrow means you may turn right if you feel like it or
wait for green. Just park your car in front of the traffic light... it'll be
fine.

~~~
flyx86
Parking is not allowed on direction lanes (this one is a turn-right lane). You
may halt your car there, but you may not leave it (thus park it). So while you
_can_ do this, you will also block yourself from doing much else.

Of course, a DDoS attack would be possible by having a couple of friends and
switching the driver every once in a while.

A witty state lawyer may also try to sue you based on StVO §30 (1), though
winning that trial won't be very likely, because you can simply stop the
engine (allowed at traffic lights).

~~~
pluma
They could still get you for plain old obstruction. The thing about laws that
makes them different from code is that intent matters. Even if you follow the
letter of the law you can still get into trouble if you blatantly obviously
try to violate its spirit.

------
tempodox
Would that light actually stop anyone? In France and Italy, traffic lights are
just recommendations. We once got honked at for waiting at a red light when
there was no cross traffic.

~~~
jankassens
Crossing a red light is a pretty strong traffic violation in Germany. If the
light was red for longer then 1 second apparently 200€, a 1 month driving
suspension, and 2 out of 8 points to lose your license.

[https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/rote-
ampel/](https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/rote-ampel/)

~~~
janci
So for running a 28 years long red light would be decapitation and two
consecutive perpetual prisons.

~~~
pluma
Luckily Germany abides by the international convention on human rights and
doesn't have the death penalty so it'd probably be three life sentences. And
because of § 54 section 1 StGB they'd be flattened into a single life
sentence, which in practice translates to "at least 15 years".

The German equivalent of "life with no chance of parole" would be
"Sicherheitsverwahrung" (preventive detention, consecutive to the life
sentence) which is an extremely dodgy instrument that is probably in violation
of the constitution and the international human rights charter if you look too
closely but still used when punishing people who probably should instead be
treated for difficult mental health problems.

But I admit that makes for a less funny joke.

------
PhasmaFelis
> _While this may seem nonsensical and a waste of money to your average
> motorist, the Dresden authorities can explain in exact detail why the light
> never changes colour. And their explanation might show another habitat that
> dies hard - a love of convoluted, self-defeating regulation._

That seems unnecessarily critical. Clear and consistent communication is
pretty important when you're talking about traffic, and the cost is surely a
drop in the bucket compared to the city's overall budget.

------
losteverything
Rt turn on red is voluntary. Not one to have road rage much but I enjoy
waiting for the green if a jerk is behind me.

Also being paid by the hour to drive red lights are your friend

~~~
discordianfish
This is so german of you!

------
jhh
I am German (and drive a car) and as per my understanding this traffic light
could simply be removed with the only change necessary being a stop sign
instead of the Yield sign.

The explanation given by the city (or its translation) don't make any sense to
me.

EDIT: After re-reading the explanation I guess the idea is that since the
crossing street shows a green light, the "opposing" street must have a red
one.

------
data_hope
Funnily enough, there is precedent, that a red light can be ignored if it
doesn't change for 5 minutes. And I really doubt that there isn't a way to
regulate the crossing without a permanent red light.

[http://www.stvo.de/info/faq/165-ampel-bleibt-
rot](http://www.stvo.de/info/faq/165-ampel-bleibt-rot) (German)

~~~
mmarx
That allows you to assume that the traffic light is defective, in which case
the traffic signs would apply and require you to turn right—but that is
exactly what is allowed by the green arrow even at a red light.

~~~
data_hope
ah you are right, probably there is a blue right-turn only sign (I just
thought about the Grünpfeil depicted in the illustration image).

------
TheCoreh
Perhaps they could put a physical barrier in front of that, so that it's no
longer possible to go forward, and then it's no longer part of the
intersection?

~~~
lb1lf
-Then again, would that be cheaper or less confusing than simply keeping the light?

~~~
GFischer
I think it's certainly less confusing to put a physical barrier. I could see
myself waiting for the light to turn green :) . And it shouldn't cost more
than 10.000 euros (a couple of years of maintenance of the traffic light).

I don't understand which of the lights is the offending one:

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/G%C3%BCntzstra%C3%9Fe,+Dre...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/G%C3%BCntzstra%C3%9Fe,+Dresden,+Germany/@51.0535697,13.7579662,18z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4709cf5020d50865:0xb54dabd4097d0087!8m2!3d51.0497513!4d13.7571707)

~~~
lb1lf
First of all, the offending light, if you can call it that, is the one where
Ziegelstraße opens into Güntzstraße, here: (0).

Also, the only way that unit maintenance cost makes sense is if it is
calculated by taking whatever amount they spend on anything traffic-light
related in a year and divides it by the number of traffic lights; that
infrastructure remains in place even if this light is removed.

So - you don't really save anything except the annual maintenance trip, whose
cost is probably measured in the low hundreds (educated guess: two blokes with
high-visibility vests, driving a VW Caddy packed to the gunwales with traffic
light bulbs to the site, spending ten minutes swapping out the light bulb
before proceeding to the next light.)

Also, you'd need to change the law for it to happen.

That being said, I suspect I'd keep you company waiting at that light; when in
doubt, I tend to not move into traffic just to see what happens... :)

(0)
[https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0539102,13.7575856,3a,75y,11...](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0539102,13.7575856,3a,75y,111.79h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scW7PqWjukB-
tqiTFHHMidA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

------
husam212
I'm curious, do self-driving cars handle a case like this without intervention
from the driver?

~~~
ygra
If they want to drive in Germany, they should surely know the local driving
rules (including the green arrow sign), otherwise there'd be little point in a
self-driving car. And since there is no way of _not_ going right at this point
there should be no problem.

But I don't think there is much self-driving in city traffic yet. Especially
rules about who has to yield where are not always governed by signs visible
directly to every driver (e.g. Verkehrsberuhigter Bereich).

------
mikejmoffitt
"And their explanation might show another habitat that dies hard"

Another... habitat?

------
am185
should put red plastic or colored paper there. or just paint it red.

------
fiatjaf
Looks like some traffic lights from my town.

------
soheil
It's not red when they're replacing the bulbs for maintenance or when there is
a power outage. So this story is false. Also this is a pretty random story to
be topping HN. Sure there is an edge case where this could happen, so what.

------
simplehuman
32 points and not a single comment. OK, I will bite.

> But anyone who waits to cross into Gerokstraße could be waiting a long time
> - almost three decades if they are patient enough.

Did anyone notice the awesome pun ? If you wait that long, you will become a
patient :-)

~~~
sid-kap
I don't see the pun. Can you explain it?

~~~
tylerhou
patient - able to wait long enough

patient - you wait so long that you'll fall ill/die, thus becoming a hospital
patient

~~~
nimchimpsky
thats nonsense, and not a pun

~~~
flukus
Maybe it's that famous german sense of humor...

