Talk:Traffic light/Archive 1

message: I'd be interested to see more detail on the subject of why Garrett A. Morgan is wrongly credited with invention of the traffic signal. The U.S. Dept. of Transportation site states that Morgan was the first to patent it, while being quite vague on the issue that earlier inventors had "experimented with and even marketed" signals. An about.com article is more specific, saying that while earlier inventors had indeed patented traffic signals, Morgan's was the first that could be inexpensively produced: "In addition, my invention contemplates the provision of a signal which may be readily and cheaply manufactured"; this provision is not mentioned on the myth-debunking site. The corresponding section in our Garrett Morgan article appears to be lifted almost verbatim from the about.com article, but also fails to mention inexpensive manufacture. Even if we don't know the reason for wrong attribution, I think the phrase "for unknown reasons" should be removed; someone knows the reasons, even if it's not us. -- Wapcaplet 19:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garrett Morgan's signal 

message: This edit was from an IP address that has also contributed significant vandalism.  It is possible the edit was incorrect and dishonestly cited a source. - Taxman 22:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm. http://ffp1.faa.gov/approach/media/pdfs/ControllerAcceptanceFinal.pdf has a bit about the book; it doesn't confirm or deny it.--SPUI 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please verify an edit 

message: Don't you think there are a little too many East Berlin photos? The segment is pretty short, and the whopping three images extend way into the next section. I'd suggest putting the image from Barnes Dance instead of one of the East Berlin ones, as it would go great with the "Pedestrian Scramble" section. newkai 13:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little too many East Berlin photos? 

message: Huh? I live in MA and I've never seen a flashing green light, nor do I recall hearing of them in Driver's Ed. Someone verify this??
I've also never seen the signs in Boston that Anonymous mentioned, and have managed to flow with green lights, though I try to avoid driving here. 24.91.43.225 2 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)
I've seen flashing greens (in crosswalks) in the Newark, Delaware area--but that was back in 1988 (the last time I was there).
: EngineerScotty 03:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass 

message: I don't believe this article specifies what kind of light bulbs that modern signals use, i.e. how come you don't see them burning out often.
Just added a section on the shift from incandescent bulbs to LEDs.  Probably could use more meat; as well as more information on how incandescent bulb technology works.  The color filters used to produce red/green/yellow from white light are discussed elsewhere in the article; as are the "stencil" filters used to produce arrows or other shapes.  One other thing that isn't mentioned, but is worth a mention, are the various filters (metal "blinder" apertures, polarizing filters) used to limit the angle of visibilty of a light--for example, to make a left-turn signal (in the US) difficult to view from the straight-ahead lanes.  (Though it should be noted that the polarizing filters are being phased out--at least where I live--that might be due to the LED transition).
I think it might be useful to re-organize the page, so the technical aspects (how traffic lights work) is in a separate section from the application.
One other section I'd like to add is one on legal issues--what constitutes a red light violation (different jurisdictions have different laws), enforcement aspects (different jurisdictions are stricter than others; in some places red lights are routinely ignored by motorists), and a mention of red light cameras.
: EngineerScotty 03:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kind of bulbs? 

message: Where do they call it that? I've never heard the term and I've lived in nine states. BrownstoneKnockn 15:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your question.  I've never seen that term on the West Coast — and I've read Gary Richards' newspaper column on Silicon Valley road construction issues, Roadshow, regularly for almost two decades.  What state uses "lead light" terminology?  This may be a regional issue, in which case the "lead light" statement needs to be qualified and limited accordingly.--Coolcaesar 17:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Light 

message: The other uses section includes the claim In some areas of the US, patrons of various social gatherings use traffic light color coding to indicate availability: red clothing would indicate that the wearer was in a monogamous relationship, amber would indicate a nonmonogamous relationship, and green would indicate that the wearer was single.
To my British mindset this sound very unlikely and seems to be lacking any specific detail to qualify it for encylopedic inclusion.   Could anyone clarify this?
:I have never heard of this anywhere on the West Coast.  This may be a weird regional practice occurring in some obscure corner of the Midwest, the Great Plains, or the East Coast, but I doubt it.  I suspect that it is misinformation planted by a troll and should be removed.  --Coolcaesar 01:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I can confirm this practice.  I've certainly seen "Traffic light discos" advertised at several UK universities.  Not convinced it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia entry though so I snipped it. --Richard Clegg 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours of clothing to indicate sexual availability in US 

message: I think that the intersection of First and Pike and in Seattle (in front of Pike Place Market) is a pedestrian scramble, perhaps the only one in the city.  Can anybody confirm this?  Brianhe 06:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pike Place Market 

message: A sentence in this part of the article just seems pointless to me.
    "The major disadvantage of this system of traffic light is... as well is being problematic for the color blind."
Problematic for the color blind? Wouldn't the REGULAR traffic light system be "problematic to the color blind" too? Unless someone sees the point in this sentence I'm removing it. 4.231.41.233 14:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A regular light as red/amber/green from top to bottom or left to right, thus a colorblind person can tell which one is on, by which one is lit up. -newkai | talk | contribs 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tianjin China 

message: Regarding the sentence
     "Yukon Territory signals, currently found only in Whitehorse, are mounted horizontally over the road, and additional signals facing the same direction are sometimes also mounted vertically on the vertical post that supports signal mounts."
Unless I am reading the sentence wrong, traffic lights mounted horizontally over the road as well as vertically on the support post at the same intersection can be found everywhere, not just the Yukon territory!  In fact, some of the vertical lights are actually mounted on top of the vertical post to be seen at a distance, especially if the intersection is at the bottom of a hill.  --Goldrushcavi 19:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this section of the article here.
* Cool, I started to do that on Thursday, but got stuck self-debating a good title.  Unusual usages of traffic lights works for me. KelleyCook 15:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yukon reference 

message: : I moved this section of the article here.
* Cool, I started to do that on Thursday, but got stuck self-debating a good title.  Unusual usages of traffic lights works for me. KelleyCook 15:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: The first three colour traffic light was erected in 1916 in New York City (URL: http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd/html/transportation/newpage5.html), not in 1920 in Detroit, what was said in the article. 
rozziite 08:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the article you cited confirms that was not the precursor to the modern traffic light.  Lights only faced north and south and the meaning of the colors were completely different from today's standard interpretation. -- KelleyCook 14:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The Lloydminster situation is actually quite common in the United States as well.  We have many traffic lights at intersections on city boundaries that often correspond with boundaries between cities, counties, and states.  In fact the situation is even more complicated legally in the United States since in the U.S. the states are the plenary sovereigns!  We got rid of the monarch a long time ago. If no one objects, I'm going to generalize that paragraph to take a worldwide view. --Coolcaesar 20:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having added it myself (and driven through that intersection), I cited it as an example. I don't doubt that there are cases in the US such as Texarkana and Kansas City. Do you have examples where a state boundary follows a roadway through a controlled intersection? GBC 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington DC and Maryland.  I was on US 29 yesterday.  It's Georiga Avenue, and it crosses Eastern Avenue, which is half in Maryland and half within the District.  You stop in the District, and the light that is stopping you is across the street in Maryland (same the other direction).  I'm sure this happens elsewhere, like maybe Bristol, Virginia/Tennessee or Bluefield Virginia/West Virginia. --MPD01605 (T / C) 14:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lloydminster situation is actually quite common 

message: Signal seems to be the communicative term; in legalese, it's a "traffic control device".
When the city proposed to put up lighting along our street for nighttime illumination, they called them "traffic lights" on the official notice about a local improvement charge on our property taxes. Up to then, I thought "traffic lights" were the red-yellow-green control lights, but municipal parlance probably called them "traffic signals". GBC 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See wiktionary:traffic light.  That shows "traffic signal" to be a US variation of a term.  Dictionary.com shows "traffic light" as the entry term, too (traffic signal redirects to traffic light).  Within the article, as long as the two terms are defined in the beginning, I don't see why they can't be interchangeable.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my work as a transport engineer, we attempt to use "signal" when referring to this article's devices; and "light" when refering to streetlighting.  However, I agree in that as long as the name is defined at the beginning of this article, it's fine -- I catch myself saying "traffic light" every once in awhile, as that's the term I grew up with. --Thisisbossi 18:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic "signal" or Traffic "light" 

message: This article mixes colour and color, unauthorised and unauthorized, etc randomly, even within a paragraph.
Although this is an international article, it should all be either American or British spellings the same throughout.
Also, use of left turns or right turns where the description is applicable to either country, it is sometimes ambiguous as to wether it means across the road or to the side.
Kaldosh 09:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, I'd spell everything like the rest of the world.  So colour, unauthorised, etc.  This is an international article.  Ont left or right turns, I'm not sure.  I'm a little confused as to what you're referring.  If you are referring to right on red, then it may be necessary that we re-word some sections. --MPD01605 (T / C) 13:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the guidelines, if the article is predominantly related to one specific geographical area then using the form of English used in that area is preferred. But as this isn't the case, it is considered that there is no clear preference for American or Commonwealth English and therefore first author's usage is the accepted fallback. Consistency is a must in any case. In terms of driving on the left and right, I would suggest the article be written as much as possible to make it irrelevant. Beyond that mention both I guess. Nil Einne 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  british vs american differences (color vs colour, also driving on left vs right) 

message: "Another interesting practice seen at least in Ontario is that cars wishing to turn left that arrived after the left turn signal ended can do so during the amber phase, as long as there is enough time to make a safe turn."
I removed this because it was seriously confusing even me. Does it refer to being able to turn left on the straight-ahead amber at a protected left turn signal? If so it's notable. If it refers to being able to turn left on the straight-ahead amber at a protected/permissive ("doghouse") signal - then it's the same everywhere and can be cruft-binned.
And that reminds me - shouldn't the article have a picture of a "doghouse signal"? - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, if there is no separate left-turn signal, cars wishing to turn left can move out into the intersection and wait for a safe gap in opposing traffic to make their turn, even if they make the turn during the amber or even the red phase. --  Denelson83  18:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Under Queensland's setup, if you move into the traffic area (the intersection) while the light is green, you are permitted to exit it even if your direction of travel has a red light and the opposing has a green, as long as it is safe to do so. Xt828 08:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence removed from article... 

message: The article repeatedly uses the term traffic 'Lights'. That expression is alright, if used in context of casual conversation. 
Anything more formal, including this article, should use the term Traffic Signal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.59.191.19 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right Teminology 

message: Change to discriminate between indicative green arrows and filter green arrows.  This confuses the hell out of the professionals, never mind the public.  I've tried to make the distinction clear.  One way to reduce the {verylong} entry would be to divide into different jurisdictions.  Even removing just the UK and other left-carriageway driving national entries into a separate page would reduce the length significantly by removing the left/right repetitions.  I can work on the UK section if requested?  
Note, in my region "traffic lights" are the vernacular, while the professionals use "traffic signals".  In letters to the public I use "traffic light signals" to avoid any ambiguity.
Momist 00:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to UK entry 

message: The humour section has no mention of the very popular joke that if you drive through traffic lights at a speed of at least 0.3c, the Doppler effect of the light entering your eye will cause a red traffic light to appear green. JIP | Talk 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure that's a joke... isn't that just a fact of physics that would apply anywhere?  Because it could apply to any situation, though, I do not think it is at-all notable for this article; and even still, it should at least have a reference in support of it. --Thisisbossi 03:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing humour reference 

message: Is it just me, or has this article become over-long and confusing?  In particular the first couple of sections are a mess... the emphasis on the minutiae of traffic-light practices in numerous different jurisdictions... the long lists of countries that seem to qualify almost every fact... these things make the article hard to read and difficult to follow.
I think some major reorganization is in order.
TomH 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long and Confusing