Talk:Traffic light/Archive 2

message: If the page is to be reorganized, can I suggest mention of the following, from France:
Traffic signals are never repeated at the other side of the intersection in France.  Drivers in most parts of the world (Ireland, UK, USA, Australia - my experience only) who are first in the queue at a red light are used to being able to look across the intersection and seeing the light that applies to them displayed.  This is not the case in France.
Why do they do this? It does make absolutely clear the point at which a driver must stop.  It also removes any confusion that can occur at oddly shaped junctions where some drivers look at the wrong light.
It also removes the following problem: at some T-junctions in UK, I have seen drivers coming from the minor road onto the through-road and stopping because they see the red-light meant for drivers on the through-road.  They are incorrect in doing this but would be correct if in France.
It is also useful in towns and cities where there are several junctions spaced close together.
It has disadvantages though: if turning left in France and you move into the junction waiting for a gap in the traffic to turn, you have no way of knowing when the green changes to amber and red. 
The same is true in heavy traffic.  If you edge past the lights into the junction going straight on you don't know when the lights change.
The following help this situation:
1.  A second set of traffic lights is always displayed at a lower level for the driver at the front of the queue.  This solves one problem but it does mean that the driver is looking to the right before moving off.  I much prefer looking straight ahead to see any potential hazards.
2. For left-turning traffic, there is sometimes a light displayed to indicate when traffic coming in the opposite direction has a red-light and thus when it is safe to turn.  This light is in the form of a red cross.  When lit, opposing traffic has red light.  When not lit, opposing traffic has green light.
David in dublin 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 

message: The correct term is a Traffic Signal, not Traffic Light.  This is because they provide a signal for drivers to obey rather than providing light for illumination (being able to see).  The term written in UK law is Traffic Light Signal and they are also known as Automated Traffic Signals, the use of 'Traffic Light' is not technically correct and should be discouraged.
194.129.64.35 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have placed #REDIRECT Traffic Light  at the locations you mentioned. But based on the number of names for them around the world, IMHO, it is not cause for Moving the page. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of Article 

message: I just reverted this edit by Epicentre as I cannot follow its rationale.  Firstly, by the lingo used in my area (so perhaps it's different elsewhere), a malfunction results in flashing amber; but a failure results in a dark signal.  Secondly, if all sides are expected to give way, what would be the point of adding a stop sign?  How would the approaches without the stop sign -- whom are not supposed to stop -- know that the other approaches have the stop sign?  Is a sign provided which indicates that they may travel through without stop on flashing amber?  Are varying colors used in each direction instead of signs, as in N.America where flashing amber indicates a vehicles may proceed with caution and flashing red indicates a vehicle must stop?  And what happens if the signal is dark: do the duties of motorists change as compared with a flashing signal?  If you can provide references, that may help in clearing up my confusion.  Lastly: it is not advisable to mark information additions as minor edits.  Cheers!  --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 11:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what traffic rules are like in Israel but the purpose of a stop sign would seem obvious to me. I'm aware the US uses stop signs in a slightly funny way (4 way intersections each with a stop sign) but AFAIK from the stop sign article, this is rare in most of the rest of the world. At least in the commonwealth and apparently in a lot of the rest of Europe, stop signs are used sparingly. Generally, if you have a stop sign you give way to all traffic except traffic without a stop sign. So for example, if the traffic lighted intersection had a stop sign and the traffic lights were broken then I would presume anyone with the stop sign would give way to everyone else. For an example of how stop signs often work see . AFAIK although some of the give way rules in New Zealand are somewhat unusual (specifically in the UK, Australia people turning left usually have the right of way), the actual stop sign, give way sign etc rules are fairly common in much of the commonwealth and potentially much of Europe as well. Nil Einne 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by Epicentre 

message: Okay, so in Lloydminster I can be waiting at a red signal according to Alberta's traffic laws going one way and Saskatchewan's going the other way. Why is this relevant? If Alberta permitted right-on-red and Saskatchewan didn't, for example, I can see why it might make a difference. Merely talking about an issue of the jurisdiction in which any cases arising from any crashes might be heard, in one set of junctions in one town, seems a little irrelevant to a general article on traffic lights. Marnanel 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lloydminster is also included in talk above in section 17...  I really don't think this city's traffic signals are worth mentioning in the article.  The article is already very long and I don't think examples of traffic signals is required.  While each province may have their own legislation for this, so do the municipalities and whether they are on the Alberta or Sask. side, they're still in the same municipality.  I just don't see why it's notable for an encyclopedic article. --nobuyuki219.108.24.231 07:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  This is not exactly very notable, or interesting, or relevant. --Coolcaesar 07:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lloydminster 

message: not sure if or how relevent itis so I thought I would at least bring it up here ... Traffic Signal Operations Specialist. looks intresting and somewhat relevent. anyone know more about this ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  see also 

message: Under the section Turning signals and rules they mention: "In a fourth type, sometimes seen at intersections in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, there is no dedicated left-turn lamp per se. Instead, the normal green lamp flashes rapidly, indicating permission to go straight as well as make a left turn in front of opposing traffic, which is being held by a steady red lamp."
I would just like to note that it's not only in Ontario and Quebec.  They also have "flashing green" in Halifax, Nova Scotia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.88.11 (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashing green light 

message: If the first traffic lights were in the U.K. how are 'modern' traffic lights a U.S. invention? Firstly the design of traffic lights has been in a constant state of flux since their invention in the England. By adding the weasel word 'modern' the author is trying to assert that anything prior to the particular U.S. example quoted is not 'modern'
Truly 'modern' computer controlled lights with radio telemetry for emergency vehicles are what I would call 'modern' not the author's antiquated American example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it as basically saying that the first traffic lights looking something like the current ones tend to were installed in the U.S. They were predated by British lights, but the British ones were more like semaphores, and less like the current 3-lights-in-a-row design. The referencing in this section is weak all around, though, so we should probably find some reliable book on the subject and follow what it says. --Delirium (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The usual U.S. centric bias. 

message: Should Yacker Trackers (traffic lights in classrooms that monitor noise) be mentioned in Section 11.1, "As a rating mechanism"? Nerdygeek101 (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yacker Trackers 

message: The two edits by LMB on April 26, 2008 seem to have removed a great deal of text. Are they acceptable? Nerdygeek101 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by LMB 

message: A lot of new over-roadway technologies are being introduced and implemented. Should there perhaps be a sub-section within Technology called 'Sensors' to expound upon these technologies? Or is it perhaps as yet irrelevant since an overwhelming number of sensors at intersections as yet are in-roadway, with the exception of the emergency override sensors as discussed later in the article?
Marc (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic Technology Query 

message: In France, traffic lights can show flashing amber to all directions. This means "give way to traffic entering from the right" - in other words, what you would do if the lights were not there. This may be activated in some failure conditions, or, at least until the late 1980s, at night. Of course, the same rule also applies if the lights are completely out.
Is it still common practice to effectively put the lights into "fail" at night in France? I haven't seen it for a few years but then have not spent much time on the road in France at night recently - many such instances have been in fairly large towns. EmleyMoor (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  France - flashing amber lights and failure 

message: The article states, Houston, Texas has a unique system in which tickets for running the red light caught by the camera are a civil infraction rather than a criminal offense that appears on your driving record.  I don't believe this can be described as unique anymore; in Washington state, red light camera violations result in a fine but do not appear on your driving record.
64.81.163.112 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red light camera civil infraction 

message: Why have headings been put in the middle?
Tabletop (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading in middle? 

message: "Nevertheless, it is increasingly and disturbingly common in at least the U.S. to see drivers who do not yield in the absence of a dedicated signal, cutting off traffic that has right-of-way and is starting to head across the intersection."
This is in the middle of a long paragraph about ¼ of the way down the page (in "Turning signals and rules"), but doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I will add a "citation needed" tag to it, but it probably should be deleted. 76.21.8.213 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: sorry I'm new here so I will not be able to give lots of comments but I also think it's way to long  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joopie99 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  your right way to long 

message: New detector types are being used that don't require the pedestrian to push a button. Ultrasound, treadles, bollards with light beams, etc., are being used.
Also, accessible pedestrian signal systems use such things as locator tones so blind and low-vision pedestrians can find the push buttons, vibrating and light-up buttons so the pedestrian gets feedback when pushing the button, voice messages to supplement pedestrain head indications, and so forth.
This might be worth splitting off to a sub-article.--Triskele Jim (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedestrian signal detection and indications 

message: Due to the increased use of LED traffic lights throughout the world there should be images demonstrating the capability of this technology under the "Technology" section of this article. Could these images be uploaded to Wikipedia and embedded into this page under the appropriate section. This would greatly enhance the "Technology" part of this article and would explain the technology as it is being progressively rolled out and replacing indecent bulbs around the world. Therefore, please upload images of LED Traffic Lights. Thankyou.
:Indecent bulbs? Are they the red ones I see in upstairs windows around here? SimonTrew (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  LED Traffic Lights Suggestion 

message: I am a bit puzzled by the changes by User_talk:206.209.221.90 (that's Cat C I dunno how stable it is as an IP address). I'm imagining that the user feels the sections  deleted are redundant/duplicated. But it would help if a change reason was given when so doing.
Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest changes by 206.209.221.90 

message: I've made a step in adding a link to the 3M High Visibility Signals article under the "Mounting" section of the article, in hopes to aid further understanding of the application of a programmable visibility signal.
Furthermore, I've removed the [citation needed] tag in re: the remark about McCain being the only manufacturer of programmable visibility signals. According to the patent awarded to 3M when they developed the technology (see the 3M HVS article for more), to be considered a programmable visibility signal, the aiming, programming, and optical limiting of the signal head must be done by hand to ensure a correct signal display for the lane in which the indication is intended (the proof can be further supplanted by viewing these YouTube clips here, , which explains how the process is achieved).
It is true that Econolite does market what is called the Intelight/Optisoft "Electronic Steerable Beam" traffic signal (see here:), but the light output and the display capabilities of that signal head are vastly different from that of a 3M head, or a McCain Programmable Visibility head, and thus cannot be considered a "true" programmable visibility signal. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. One thing I might suggest is a bit more explanation in the main lighting section about Fresnel lenses. Obviously it is covered in its main topic but its particular application to traffic lights might be useful there rather than specifically in the programmability section etc? SimonTrew (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programmable Visibility signals issue, fact tag removal, etc. 

message: Still quite common in the UK. Could also mention pelican and other types of zebra crossings that have traffic lights. 89.243.46.238 (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A Zebra crossing is considered a controlled crossing enviroment but is it really Signalised? I personally consider it to be a formal pedestrian arrangement, but not signalised and therefore outside the scope of this article. Pelican/Puffin/Toucan crossings are not types of zebra crossing, they are signalised crossing points.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.174.177 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Belisha beacon]]s ought to be mentioned. 

message: Does anyone agree with me that this section, and several individual paragraphs, are getting way too long? (The whole article is way too long, but that's for another day.) It needs to be broken up a bit, I think. Any comments? SimonTrew (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. personally, I think it should go in a separate article on the rules of the road.--Triskele Jim (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of what is presented there is redundant or unsourced. There are articles on the many different rules of the road←redirects to a section of Traffic, a summary article. These regional variations are partially covered in articles like Driving in the United Kingdom, Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, Driving in the United States or  Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China. These articles present much of what is present in this section.  The section should be trimmed and turned into more of a summary pointing interested readers where they want to go. Synchronism (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turning signals and rules" section 

message: In the History section of Traffic Lights, there is the following statement: Ashville, Ohio claims to be the location of the oldest working traffic light in the United States, used at an intersection of public roads until 1982 when it was moved to a local museum.[6]
Then below in the Dummy Lights section the following is written: A dummy light is a traffic light which stands on a pedestal in the middle of an intersection. There are at least three which still operate in the United States today, all located in New York State: Beacon, Canajoharie and Croton-on-Hudson. There have been number of requests in recent years for these traffic lights to be removed due to safety concerns, but the historic value have kept these landmarks at their original locations.
Wouldn't the fact that the Ashville Ohio one now resides in a museum make it not the oldest, or is it simply because it's got power still going to it? Maybe that section needs to change to add that the oldest still operating Dummy Light resides in X and find out which one of the 3 in NYS is the oldest?
Thanks.
tigkargman@yahoo.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.121.176 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about content 

message: How about a section explaining the countdown timers on car and pedestrian traffic lights in several countries? Turkeyphant 10:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make a good new sub-article. If somebody sets it up, I'd be happy to contribute to it.Schwede66 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countdown lights 

message: brief note as i dont have a good internet connexion the history of traffic lights has been on radio 4 today adam hart davies at 4 BST might be worth someone checking it out derek morgn black guy that i only say cos this was 1922 or `1923 and of course blacks were not so welcome at that time that is the only reason i say it may be interesting to mention. SimonTrew (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  on radio 4 

message: This article was apparently tagged for not having a worldwide view and focusing too much on the US. However, in the opening paragraph, there is clearly a leaning towards the Commonwealth view (amber vs. yellow) [which I will try to make more neutral], and throughout the article there are many explanations and examples of traffic lights used worldwide. I came to the talk page and apparently whoever tagged the article hasn't even made a case for its tagging. I think the tag should be removed. Any objections? -Eaglescout1984 12:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article covers worldwide views in most parts in my opinion, but the warrants are very US specific. I'm ok with the the main tag being removed.Schwede66 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2009 
(UTC)
The article does not at all seem to be US specific. Gingermint (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  US view?