

Could we do without traffic lights? - kfullert
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18072259

======
Duff
Interesting POV -- you can get away without traffic lights in the country or
in places where other forms of transit (ie. public transit & walking) are more
prevalent than cars. You can do so in the city as well, by installing
expensive street features that have huge downsides in snowy climates. But,
many of the arguments used by the advocate in the story are bunk.

An example re: Pedestrian accidents: "People think traffic lights are a
guarantee of safety but the latest audit from Westminster City Council, for
example, has shown that 44% of personal injury accidents occurred at traffic
lights."

Sure. Pedestrians generally cross the street at the crosswalks, which are
placed next to traffic control devices. And many of those accidents are at
intersections that lack directional control -- the driver doesn't pay
attention, turns right and hits someone crossing the street.

The guy is right about a few things -- the regime of controlling traffic and
handling peak demand is very inefficient. That's a feature of urban sprawl.

The problem with cars is that you get the "network effect" with respect to
road capacity. Unlike computer networks, expanding capacity is alot harder
than pulling a cable. Plus, if you have a two lane freeway or bridge, and you
expand it to three lanes, traffic patterns will adjust and congest that road
again. The New York City metropolitan area is a great example of this -- the
driving suburbs of NYC extend nearly 75 miles north of the city at this point.
People on Long Island literally commute over 2 hours to get to Manhattan via
car and train.

------
marcuspovey
If nothing else, please could we stop people putting traffic lights on
roundabouts, as the one defeats the entire point of the other.

~~~
kfullert
I think in most cases yes, but some I come across the sheer weight of traffic
on the roundabout (at peak times mainly) means that no traffic would be able
to join (say at a junction immediately prior to a major one which has 99% of
traffic on the roundabout passing it and making the traffic waiting, keep
waiting)

~~~
darklajid
Which leads back to: Why is there a roundabout in the first place?

Huuuge roundabouts with traffic lights should really be good old-fashioned
crossroads. Those take less space and work fine. Roundabouts tend to be a
better solution _if you don't have the constant flow of heavy traffic_.

I agree with the gp: Either a roundabout xor traffic lights.

------
clarkevans
In Ann Arbor Michigan, they've been installing roundabouts in many junctions
[1]. My next door neighbor is a landscape architect and is a huge fan of them
-- they virtually eliminate fatal accidents. Roundabouts normalize traffic,
creating a continuous flow of more evenly spaced cars with overall greater
throughput. With islands in the middle, they are much safer for pedestrians.

There are two downsides. They really require much more space than a
traditional intersection. They also remove "traffic gaps" between major
streets that permit people to make a left hand turn out of a neighborhood.

He's not a huge fan of 2-lane roundabouts. They create an incentive for
drivers to cheat by driving down middle of both lanes, staying at 35/40 rather
than slowing down to 25 go around the round about. They also cause confusion
when someone gets into the wrong lane (left/center lane must go straight
through) and this reduces throughput. Perhaps there is a minimum/maximal
traffic where they work effectively.

After using roundabouts at nearby intersections, I'd also add that they are
much more attractive. Waiting at a light causes stress (and people tend to
"text", causing more delays). Given the chance, I prefer to take routes that
use roundabouts. I've timed them, and they are faster and more consistent then
traditional 4-way-lights, especially at intersections where left/right hand
turns normally cause traffic backups.

[1] [http://www.annarbor.com/news/roundabout-planned-for-
geddes-a...](http://www.annarbor.com/news/roundabout-planned-for-geddes-and-
ridge-roads-in-superior-township-as-part-of-new-charter-school-roa/)

~~~
Duff
Roundabouts are great in suburban or low-volume urban environments where
speeds are low.

But they can be dangerous for pedestrians in areas where you have a high
density of traffic and pedestrians.

The problem is, transit planners tend to think of terms of making things flow
well for suburban commuters going to work in the city. They tend to forget
about the folks who live in the city.

~~~
keeperofdakeys
In my city, there is a roundabout with five junctions, although I find most
roundabouts fine, I really don't like this one. During peakhour, you can have
long wait times, much longer then a respective traffic light. Another
interesting thing about this roundabout is gaps in traffics caused by other
traffic lights determine which road is currently a main outlet.

------
eslachance
We'll be able to remove traffic lights, signs, yields, stop signs, and every
other limitation... Once the Google Self-Driving car becomes universally
adopted. As long as the car itself is able to perfectly judge for safety, and
possibly communicate with other cars, then there's no need to stop when the
car knows, for a fact, that there are no other obstacles around.

Of course, that's still very far off!

~~~
wisty
I used to argue that insurance companies would push for them, because self-
driving cars would reduce accidents.

But the cynic in me wonders if they will be afraid that self-driving cars will
push insurance costs down so much the insurance companies will lose out.

~~~
Raiderrobert
While the costs may go down and people's premiums will likely go down
commensurately, accidents will still happen. So most people will carry
insurance for that purpose. And besides, do you really think the insurance
companies are going to let the state governments make casualty car insurance
not required? Or do you think the car loan companies will really drop
requiring comprehensive coverage as a requirement? I think not.

------
darklajid
I don't buy it. Especially this:

"Instinctively, we want to be kind to each other, especially out on the road.
When you first meet a stranger, unless you're a mugger, you want to be nice to
that stranger."

The author himself admitted a couple paragraphs before that he really wanted
to speed up at a traffic light instead of stopping, thereby risking running a
red light. This "Don't want to wait" is one of the many examples that come to
my mind and contradict this "We're all nice, deep down in our hearts" idea.

You can remove traffic lights - if you reduce cars to a crawl/make them the
least priority. Treating pedestrians and cars as equals won't work in my
opinion. Betting safety on a hippie idea [1] doesn't sound compelling either.

1: To be fair: I _like_ the idea that we're all just totally trying to be nice
to each other. It's just .. very much not true in my experience, especially
among strangers.

------
tallpapab
Sorry. That was one of the worst things I've read this week. The jumping to
conclusions, the unstated assumptions. The gross misuse of statistics. I love
the one about 44% of pedestrian accidents happen at traffic lights. I think it
was Willie Sutton, the famous bank robber, who said he robbed banks because
that's where the money was. If pedestrians cross in crosswalks that's where
you're likely to hit them. Because that's where the pedestrians are. Oy! Don't
get me started. It was seriously put forth a few years ago in Berkeley that
all crosswalks in the city should be erased on the theory that pedestrians
become "overconfident" in the crosswalks. The evidence given was that cars hit
pedestrians mostly in the crosswalks. Luckily the traffic engineer who
proposed this took a job in the suburbs.

------
sangupta
The author should visit the busy streets of north India - specifically the NCR
region and see what happens when the red lights are not functioning. I have
faced such situations and have been stuck for up to an hour for the jam to
clear up. Per my own personal experience, traffic lights are a must.

~~~
Sapient
There could be cultural differences at play here I suppose. The British seem
to have a knack for queuing which may be missing in other cultures.

I live in South Africa, and I have definitely seen improvements in traffic
when certain lights are out during rush hour (4-way stops on highways in
particular).

~~~
gawker
I agree with the knack of queuing being missing in different cultures. In
Malaysia, when the traffic lights go out, it's absolute deadlock.

------
larrydag
"I knew it would be a long wait at this set of lights."

As an odd hobby of mine I like to watch the clock when I get to a traffic
light to see how long I actually wait. I don't record it but I am amazed how
often I only wait about 1 minute. I think the facts are much different then
everyone's perception.

~~~
kfullert
I think 1 minute is probably about the average wait in off-peak traffic (I'm
going to have to start timing how long I sit at lights now) but on my journey
I pass through at least 10 sets of traffic lights - waiting for 1min at each
of them adds 10mins to my journey (admittedly I don't wait that long or even
at all at most of them) but the potential is there

------
ck2
Spend a week driving in a college town and decide if lights are a good idea or
not.

Everyone whipping around in 3-ton SUVs, texting and yammering away on the
phone while they drive.

Just feel fortunate the do mostly stop at the lights when you are coming the
other way.

------
mistercow
I wonder this every time a light goes out and I see people carefully and
considerately coordinating to take turns at an intersection. But I really
think if that weren't a special case that got everyone's attention, the result
would be more collisions.

------
icegreentea
They don't talk about pedestrians at all here. Lights might be annoying, but
it's also seriously nerve wrecking for all involved when dealing with a
pedestrian crossing without lights. As a pedestrian trying to cross, it's
often difficult to judge the driver's intent, even if they are slowing down,
so I'll end up staying off to the side until they stop completely. Needless to
say, that's hilariously inefficient.

And when it gets dark, it just gets worse. It might be possible for the driver
to see the pedestrian pretty well, but the reverse isn't always true.

------
mseebach
_"The fatal flaw at the heart of the system is priority. [...] The unseen
spanner in the works is the idea of main road priority."_

He fiddles a bit with a story about a woman and a pram, but doesn't actually
address why this is a bad idea. While access and crossings can be improved in
places, letting traffic flow fast and freely on main roads seems like a
fundamentally good idea to me?

------
nicholassmith
As a driver I can understand why removing traffic lights makes sense in some
regards.

However, I spend less time driving than I do by my usual form of transport,
walking, and frankly there's a minor subsection of drivers who are bad enough
as it is (case in point, how many jump zebra crossings).

Maybe it's just in need of disruption, adaptive pattern systems and such.

~~~
kfullert
I've heard some Spanish traffic lights are quite "smart" for traffic control
(these are mainly on highways rather than junctions/pedestrian crossings)
where if you travel at or below the speed limit, the lights are green, speed
and they go red thereby giving a positive association for not speeding (ie if
you don't speed, you and everyone else travelling the same stretch probably
get there faster - make everyone stop as you're speeding and most likely
people won't be happy)

~~~
toemetoch
They have them in a lot of European countries, we call it "the green wave".

There's also another trend on the rise: cameras that take photographs of
license plates at an interval of several miles. If the calculated speed (the
average) is larger than what's permitted you get a ticket.

~~~
kfullert
Yes, we have those in the UK called SPECS
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECS_%28speed_camera%29>) although these are
generally (only in my experience) used temporarily in roadworks etc. which
have a temporary lower speed limit.

I believe France did this the low-tech way in the past with toll roads (get a
ticket with the time when you enter a toll road, pass it to the booth when you
get off, S=D/T and caclulate if you have a speeding fine to pay as well)

------
gouranga
It's bad enough with traffic lights [1]. If you take them away, then it's like
an idiot free-for-all out there...

[1] <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=854_1337054851>

~~~
mseebach
Your logic is lacking. The car in that clip is driving without the least
regard to reasonable behaviour and the law. He was not stopped be the presence
of traffic lights. Are you suggesting that he would be less not stopped by the
absence of traffic lights?

Or as the article puts it:

 _"You can't even legislate for maniacs, so why hobble the vast majority with
"one size fits all" rules devised to catch the hypothetical deviant?"_

~~~
gouranga
Fucking logical pedants.

Less not stopped is logical and correct if you consider the individual. If you
read the comment again, it does not exclude other drivers so the logic is
correct. The comment was not inclusive.

Perhaps I should clarify: "If you don't apply the one size fits all rules, you
will increase the number of deviants."

Now there is a logical fallacy there for you to ponder...

Happy now?

 _bangs head on wall_

~~~
mseebach
You seem to assume that the only reason people stop for red light is the law.
Considering that plenty of non-lighted intersections exist and people behave
reasonably in them, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.

~~~
gouranga
No the only reason people stop is that they read the highway code and
therefore agreed a set of conventions to work with other people. The law (Road
Traffic Act 1988+) is the enforcement of such a thing and is a separate
problem.

With regards to other "intersections", in the UK where the They have give way
lines across the front of the junction so they are "controlled" as well.

When they are not controlled, it is carnage as the numerous bits of missing
car brushed to the side of the road demonstrate (look carefully).

~~~
mseebach
The reason people read the highway code is because it's describing what the
law is. It's meaningless to treat the highway code and the law separately.

I believe that the vast majority of people behave in traffic, not out of
reverence to a book, but because they want to arrive at their destination
safely and without having hurt other people.

Wrt. other intersections (not sure why that word needs scare quotes?), I live
right next to a fairly busy one, and can see three others from my balcony, and
I have so far failed to see any carnage.

------
beej71
People aren't naturally nice to one another around these parts.

But what would make it work is people's desire to not deal with a crash and
its fallout. That's a personal loss no matter who is at fault.

------
factorialboy
Traffic lights in its current form will be obsolete by the time AI / computers
start driving all our vehicles.

~~~
georgemcbay
We (everyone reading this) will be dead before that happens. Not because the
technology won't be there but because making auto-driving cars _mandatory_
won't fly culturally/politically, certainly not in the US.

We'll have optional self-driving Google-car style cars soonish (maybe 10-15
years out when you factor in all the regulation hurdles), but they won't be
mandatory for a very long time, if ever, and if even a small percentage of
people opt out of the automatic driving system we still need the current
control systems and road rules in place.

------
puffyresearch
imho, changing the habits of drivers would be extremely costly.

