Martin Cassini was on Radio 4's Four Thoughts just now, explaining how damaging traffic lights are, due to be repeated this Saturday at 10.15 pm.
The BBC's normal website provide a full summary here, it's all good stuff. He's got nearly a thousand comments so far, seems like a fair mixture of pro- and anti-.
Are you all set?
4 hours ago
7 comments:
I read the piece on the Beeb's website and felt it was a bit too absolutist.
Turning off traffic lights at night, even in central London, seems eminently sensible. But to argue, as the article seems to, that lights are always detrimental is unrealistic.
One thing about which I am certain is that the answer to almost every question is "it depends".
A busy crossroads might well operate more smoothly with a roundabout rather than lights, but what happens where there is no room for a roundabout? Where traffic is generally heavier on one axis than the other, and where it is heavy on both, to expect four directions of traffic to reach a happy compromise seems somewhat farfetched to me. There are many roads I use regularly in which usage is so heavy that I would not expect those attempting to cross the busiest carriageway to get a look-in unless lights stop those impeding their path.
One size cannot reasonably fit all in this circumstance.
It might be, of course, that everywhere other than London could operate perfectly well with very few lights whereas the busy capital needs them in greater numbers.
TFB: "What happens where there is no room for a roundabout?"
You can squeeze a symbolic roundabout in the smallest of places - there are three new ones near where I live, and everybody follows the rule that the car to your right has right of way, and then you make a token swerve around the large white dot painted in the middle (except me who drives straight over it).
It works absolutely fine - because it creates that little bit of uncertainty, because you never know whether the car already on the roundabout and heading towards you is going to turn off and go down the road you are on or maybe drive past you and exit to your left - it's the sole traffic light at the bottom of the road which creates the queues from Hell.
Plus it has been observed that traffic lights in London occasionally break down in some areas, and the traffic still moves, possibly more smoothly than before. Yellow boxes is another perfectly sensible solution/alternative to roundabouts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock
"I would not expect those attempting to cross the busiest carriageway to get a look-in unless lights stop those impeding their path. "
But that's because the "busiest carriageway" has priority. Get rid of that priority - with a mini-roundabout or a "four-way stop" as they (used to?) have in South Africa and a yellow box and the problem will largely disappear. Having said that, removing traffic lights in London will, in the long term, have no effect at all, as the demand for road space is so great that any additional "space" caused by the removal of the lights will soon be filled by additional traffic. The only thing that keeps drivers out of London is the high cost, in time as well as money, of driving into London. Reducing that cost, whilst not reducing the cost of the public transport alternative just results in people switching from public to private transport until the cost is back where it started - in balance with public transport.
Unlike roundabouts, nobody observes yellow boxes anymore, and the police don't enforce them.
Nobody observes yellow boxes anymore, because the police don't enforce them.
A better and more popular use for speed cameras: catching cars stationary in yellow boxes?
SB, you get that with or without traffic lights.
B, ta for backup.
J, that is a separate issue. Of course people ignore rules which aren't enforced.
B, I think, for once, it might have been fun to write "catching cars' stationery in yellow boxes".
Post a Comment