|
General » rec.autos.driving » Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence
| Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792353] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 18:27 |
|
Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
running a red.
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792358 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 18:55 |
|
On Jan 26, 11:27 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
> ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
> seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>
> I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
> using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
> running a red.
It probably wouldn't be as visible from a distance, so you'd probably
need an extra area for displaying the countdown while retaining the
yellow ball. Some other countries have this already, like Saudi
Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Khobarhires.JPG . So the
idea has merit.
-S.
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792359 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 19:00 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792361 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 19:14 |
|
Scott Nazelrod wrote:
>On Jan 26, 11:27 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
><xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
>> ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
>> seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>>
>> I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
>> using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
>> running a red.
>
>It probably wouldn't be as visible from a distance, so you'd probably
>need an extra area for displaying the countdown while retaining the
>yellow ball. Some other countries have this already, like Saudi
>Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Khobarhires.JPG . So the
>idea has merit.
I already use the countdown timer on the pedestrian crossing indicator
to judge how long I've got to get through a given intersection.
Usually I can see this at least half a block away.
--
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792362 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 19:22 |
|
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein) wrote:
> Scott Nazelrod wrote:
>
>>On Jan 26, 11:27 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>><xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
>>>ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
>>>seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>>>
>>>I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
>>>using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
>>>running a red.
>>
>>It probably wouldn't be as visible from a distance, so you'd probably
>>need an extra area for displaying the countdown while retaining the
>>yellow ball. Some other countries have this already, like Saudi
>>Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Khobarhires.JPG . So the
>>idea has merit.
>
>
> I already use the countdown timer on the pedestrian crossing indicator
> to judge how long I've got to get through a given intersection.
> Usually I can see this at least half a block away.
That works well when you have them; I've only seen those in urban areas
in places where the lights have recently been updated, however.
Setting the yellow light timing per MUTCD guidelines ought to be
sufficient, but jurisdictions frequently succumb to the temptation of
easy money from RLCs.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792364 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 19:30 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792365 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 19:35 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792371 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 19:57 |
|
On Jan 26, 11:14 am, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver
(Hector Goldstein)" <kwyj... [at] ozdebate.com> wrote:
> Scott Nazelrod wrote:
> >On Jan 26, 11:27 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> ><xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
> >> ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
> >> seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>
> >> I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
> >> using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
> >> running a red.
>
> >It probably wouldn't be as visible from a distance, so you'd probably
> >need an extra area for displaying the countdown while retaining the
> >yellow ball. Some other countries have this already, like Saudi
> >Arabia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Khobarhires.JPG. So the
> >idea has merit.
>
> I already use the countdown timer on the pedestrian crossing indicator
> to judge how long I've got to get through a given intersection.
> Usually I can see this at least half a block away.
So do i. In fact that's what made me think of doing something similar
with yellow lights.
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792372 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 20:42 |
|
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001 [at] yahoo.com> writes:
>Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
>ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
>seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
>using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
>running a red.
Here in Houston, the countdown crosswalk displays have been up and running
for a few months, and can be programmed for different durations based on
expected situations (i.e., rush hours, arena events). At the speed limit,
the driver will get about 0.08 miles of warning with a ten-second countdown
before the yellow. Meanwhile, some of the suburbs have installed such
displays, but for some reason have disabled the countdown. (Sugar Land is
the most obvious example, with new signals along the six miles of Texas 6
within the city limits.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick [at] io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 1 (January 25)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, January 26 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792373 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 21:04 |
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001 [at] yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
>> ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
>> seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>
>> I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
>> using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
>> running a red.
>
> Here in Houston, the countdown crosswalk displays have been up and running
> for a few months, and can be programmed for different durations based on
> expected situations (i.e., rush hours, arena events). At the speed limit,
> the driver will get about 0.08 miles of warning with a ten-second countdown
> before the yellow. Meanwhile, some of the suburbs have installed such
> displays, but for some reason have disabled the countdown. (Sugar Land is
> the most obvious example, with new signals along the six miles of Texas 6
> within the city limits.)
I used to live where there was a system in place that worked really well
and was a lot cheaper.
Law was: (my paraphrase) "It is illegal to be anywhere in the
intersection where a red light is seen."
The key is that it was enforced.
and it worked out that if you saw a yellow light and could reasonable
stop, you did. And if you could not reasonable stop, you would be clear
of the intersection before it turned red.
And if you weren't sure (as in the case where traffic is clogged up for
some reason, you stopped before you got to the limit line (same as for a
railroad) until you were sure you could go all the way across without
topping again.
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792375 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 21:37 |
|
[alt.true-crime removed]
On Jan 26, 1:00=A0pm, richard <I.dont.c... [at] do.you> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:27:25 -0000, "Speeders..."...wrote:
>
> >Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
> >ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
> >seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>
> >I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to a=
nd =A0 =A0
> >using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avo=
id
> >running a red.
>
> Just blink it 5 times.
They actually already do something like this (except with the green)
in Mexico and Austria, according to info posted here on
misc.transport.road in the past that I used for the m.t.r FAQ (11.1).
In most cases, one can just use a flashing "DONT WALK" to judge the
staleness of the green.
____________________________________________________________ _________
Marc Fannin|musxf579 [at] hotmail.com|http://www.roadfan.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792376 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 21:37 |
|
SFB spewed:
> Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
> ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
> seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
Because it would cost money to implement. This is out of character for a
cheap bastard like you to suggest an idea like this.
> I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
> using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
> running a red.
I have no trouble stopping for a properly timed yellow light. This
gimick is a waste of money and an impediment to Darwin getting his work
done.
--
"My dash lights burned out years ago. Just
keep a cheapie flashlight on the seat."
--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 12 Nov 2005 18:11:38 -0800
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/akxtu
Message ID: 1131847898.473454.275... [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792378 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 22:02 |
|
In article
<59d72022-c0c8-4327-9750-3e7ac7dd8b37 [at] s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Scott Nazelrod <Scott5114 [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:27 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> <xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
> > ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
> > seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
> >
> > I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
> > using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
> > running a red.
>
> It probably wouldn't be as visible from a distance, so you'd probably
> need an extra area for displaying the countdown while retaining the
> yellow ball. Some other countries have this already, like Saudi
> Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Khobarhires.JPG . So the
> idea has merit.
> -S.
No. It's a silly idea.
The last thing we need to do is to let people have a better idea about
how much time they have left to jump a yellow light.
We want everyone to stop when the light changes to yellow and the only
reason that they should *not* stop is when they are too close to do so
safely. The only things they need to know to determine that they already
know.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792379 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 22:06 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> I already use the countdown timer on the pedestrian crossing indicator
>> to judge how long I've got to get through a given intersection.
>> Usually I can see this at least half a block away.
>
>That works well when you have them; I've only seen those in urban areas
>in places where the lights have recently been updated, however.
Even without the countdown timers, the pedestrian markers at most
intersections will indicate a "cease crossing" status due to the
velocity differential between pedestrian and motorized traffic.
>Setting the yellow light timing per MUTCD guidelines ought to be
>sufficient, but jurisdictions frequently succumb to the temptation of
>easy money from RLCs.
That would work, but when RLC cameras (and the Government) are
involved, I would not hold my breath. I prefer to take a more
proactive approach.
--
This temporary .sig is to identify myself, as a nym shift has occurred.
In the past, I have spent time pursuing certain trolls around, and have decided this is no longer an activity I wish to waste my time on. As such, I have kill filed R.A.D.'s two main trolls. Thus, I am retiring the 'adaptive' nyms I have generated in response to "Aunt Judy"'s nym shifts. These have included, but not been limited to:
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)
Ted Kennedy Murdered His Pregnant Mistress (and many variants)
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792380 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 22:07 |
|
In article <alangbaker-541B4C.13023326012008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article
><59d72022-c0c8-4327-9750-3e7ac7dd8b37 [at] s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Scott Nazelrod <Scott5114 [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 26, 11:27 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>> <xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
>> > ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
>> > seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>> >
>> > I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
>> > using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
>> > running a red.
>>
>> It probably wouldn't be as visible from a distance, so you'd probably
>> need an extra area for displaying the countdown while retaining the
>> yellow ball. Some other countries have this already, like Saudi
>> Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Khobarhires.JPG . So the
>> idea has merit.
>> -S.
>
> No. It's a silly idea.
>
> The last thing we need to do is to let people have a better idea about
> how much time they have left to jump a yellow light.
>
> We want everyone to stop when the light changes to yellow and the only
> reason that they should *not* stop is when they are too close to do so
> safely. The only things they need to know to determine that they already
> know.
However, when the light turns yellow, the timer should start and count
UP at every RLC equipped intersection.
Of course they could rig the timer too, but it would make the RLC scam
more difficult.
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792381 ] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 22:07 |
|
richard wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:14:23 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken
>Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" <kwyjibo [at] ozdebate.com> wrote:
>
>>Scott Nazelrod wrote:
>>>On Jan 26, 11:27 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>>><xeton2... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
>>>> ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
>>>> seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>>>>
>>>> I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
>>>> using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
>>>> running a red.
>>>
>>>It probably wouldn't be as visible from a distance, so you'd probably
>>>need an extra area for displaying the countdown while retaining the
>>>yellow ball. Some other countries have this already, like Saudi
>>>Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Khobarhires.JPG . So the
>>>idea has merit.
>>
>>I already use the countdown timer on the pedestrian crossing indicator
>>to judge how long I've got to get through a given intersection.
>>Usually I can see this at least half a block away.
>
>Yeah so here you are always mouthing off about the wrongs of others,
>and you do it yourself. Actually, in most areas, if you watch the
>crosswalk lights enough, they will begin to blink when it's about to
>change. So half a block away you probably don't have the time to make
>it.
Which is your indication that you need to prepare for the signal
allowing motorized traffic switching to the yellow light. Too
complicated?
--
This temporary .sig is to identify myself, as a nym shift has occurred.
In the past, I have spent time pursuing certain trolls around, and have decided this is no longer an activity I wish to waste my time on. As such, I have kill filed R.A.D.'s two main trolls. Thus, I am retiring the 'adaptive' nyms I have generated in response to "Aunt Judy"'s nym shifts. These have included, but not been limited to:
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)
Ted Kennedy Murdered His Pregnant Mistress (and many variants)
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792400 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 00:39 |
|
"Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larrysheldon [at] cox.net> writes:
>The Chief Instigator wrote:
>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001 [at] yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
>>> ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
>>> seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>>> I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
>>> using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
>>> running a red.
>> Here in Houston, the countdown crosswalk displays have been up and running
>> for a few months, and can be programmed for different durations based on
>> expected situations (i.e., rush hours, arena events). At the speed limit,
>> the driver will get about 0.08 miles of warning with a ten-second countdown
>> before the yellow. Meanwhile, some of the suburbs have installed such
>> displays, but for some reason have disabled the countdown. (Sugar Land is
>> the most obvious example, with new signals along the six miles of Texas 6
>> within the city limits.)
>I used to live where there was a system in place that worked really well and
>was a lot cheaper.
>Law was: (my paraphrase) "It is illegal to be anywhere in the intersection
>where a red light is seen."
>The key is that it was enforced.
>and it worked out that if you saw a yellow light and could reasonable stop,
>you did. And if you could not reasonable stop, you would be clear of the
>intersection before it turned red.
>And if you weren't sure (as in the case where traffic is clogged up for some
>reason, you stopped before you got to the limit line (same as for a railroad)
>until you were sure you could go all the way across without topping again.
I've grown up with that, and I still stick to the "yellow = stop if you can"
standard. The countdowns make it easier to judge whether there's time or
not.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick [at] io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 1 (January 25)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, January 26 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792402 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 01:17 |
|
In article <szkve5gjgwg.fsf [at] fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick [at] io.com> wrote:
> "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larrysheldon [at] cox.net> writes:
>
> >The Chief Instigator wrote:
> >> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001 [at] yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >>> Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
> >>> ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
> >>> seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
> >>> I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to
> >>> and
> >>> using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to
> >>> avoid
> >>> running a red.
>
> >> Here in Houston, the countdown crosswalk displays have been up and running
> >> for a few months, and can be programmed for different durations based on
> >> expected situations (i.e., rush hours, arena events). At the speed limit,
> >> the driver will get about 0.08 miles of warning with a ten-second
> >> countdown
> >> before the yellow. Meanwhile, some of the suburbs have installed such
> >> displays, but for some reason have disabled the countdown. (Sugar Land is
> >> the most obvious example, with new signals along the six miles of Texas 6
> >> within the city limits.)
>
> >I used to live where there was a system in place that worked really well and
> >was a lot cheaper.
>
> >Law was: (my paraphrase) "It is illegal to be anywhere in the intersection
> >where a red light is seen."
>
> >The key is that it was enforced.
> >and it worked out that if you saw a yellow light and could reasonable stop,
> >you did. And if you could not reasonable stop, you would be clear of the
> >intersection before it turned red.
>
> >And if you weren't sure (as in the case where traffic is clogged up for some
> >reason, you stopped before you got to the limit line (same as for a
> >railroad)
> >until you were sure you could go all the way across without topping again.
>
> I've grown up with that, and I still stick to the "yellow = stop if you can"
> standard. The countdowns make it easier to judge whether there's time or
> not.
No. The countdown should have no bearing, because the question isn't
whether there is time or not, but whether there is *space* or not.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792409 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 03:19 |
|
Why not cut the cost of traffic signals by having only two bulbs? Red means
stop, green means go, and when both are on it would be the equivalent of a
yellow light.
--
Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS
Objective reviews of Internet poker sites and a point system
for evaluating poker starting hands: www.ERHutchison.com
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792410 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 03:27 |
|
In article <caednQuCtIOAdwbanZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
"E. R. Hutchison" <erhutchison [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> Why not cut the cost of traffic signals by having only two bulbs? Red means
> stop, green means go, and when both are on it would be the equivalent of a
> yellow light.
At the cost of clarity? No thanks.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792412 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 03:41 |
|
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:27:24 GMT, in misc.transport.road
Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote in
<alangbaker-2A23B4.18272526012008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>:
>In article <caednQuCtIOAdwbanZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> "E. R. Hutchison" <erhutchison [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Why not cut the cost of traffic signals by having only two bulbs? Red means
>> stop, green means go, and when both are on it would be the equivalent of a
>> yellow light.
>
>At the cost of clarity? No thanks.
It used to be done that way. I recall seeing some two-bulb traffic
lights that were still installed in NYC in the '70s or early '80s.
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792413 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 03:44 |
|
E. R. Hutchison wrote:
> Why not cut the cost of traffic signals by having only two bulbs? Red means
> stop, green means go, and when both are on it would be the equivalent of a
> yellow light.
When I wuz a wee lad we called them "bell signals" and they had just
that--plus two arms that said (on one) "STOP" and (on the other) "GO"
A bell rang (hence the name), the "GO" arm lowered into the housing and
the green light went out, then the "STOP" swung up and the red light
came on.
Was a bit maintenance intense I suppose.
One of the advantages of such systems (carried into early three-light
systems) was the it mechanically impossible to show "GO" to conflicting
traffic.
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792414 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 03:48 |
|
On Jan 26, 9:41=A0pm, Free Lunch <lu... [at] nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> It used to be done that way. I recall seeing some two-bulb traffic
> lights that were still installed in NYC in the '70s or early '80s.
This Forgotten NY page has plenty of examples of the two-bangers from
that period (and later): http://www.forgotten-ny.com/LAMPS/stopclassics/stop=
classics.html
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792415 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 04:02 |
|
On Jan 26, 6:27=A0pm, Alan Baker <alangba... [at] telus.net> wrote:
> In article <caednQuCtIOAdwbanZ2dnUVZ_vWtn... [at] comcast.com>,
> =A0"E. R. Hutchison" <erhutchi... [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Why not cut the cost of traffic signals by having only two bulbs? =A0Red=
means
> > stop, green means go, and when both are on it would be the equivalent of=
a
> > yellow light.
>
> At the cost of clarity? No thanks.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
> sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Three comments on the lsst (as of now) mesages.
I can see a yellow light from five seconds away and ceeretainly don't
need that guide line.
If you do, the red and green together seem a good replacement form the
amber/yellow, but with the dummies behind the wheel today in the US,
how many generations will it take to learn.
In GB (and othjer places, I assume) the light turns red/yellow also
just before it goes to green and if you're safe to do do, you can go,
AFAIK. (Too lazy to dig put the book.)
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792418 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 04:20 |
|
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:44:32 -0600, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr."
<larrysheldon [at] cox.net> wrote:
>E. R. Hutchison wrote:
>> Why not cut the cost of traffic signals by having only two bulbs? Red means
>> stop, green means go, and when both are on it would be the equivalent of a
>> yellow light.
>
>When I wuz a wee lad we called them "bell signals" and they had just
>that--plus two arms that said (on one) "STOP" and (on the other) "GO"
>
>A bell rang (hence the name), the "GO" arm lowered into the housing and
>the green light went out, then the "STOP" swung up and the red light
>came on.
>
>Was a bit maintenance intense I suppose.
>
>One of the advantages of such systems (carried into early three-light
>systems) was the it mechanically impossible to show "GO" to conflicting
>traffic.
And no lagging left traps.
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792420 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 04:26 |
|
In article <13pn4i6i3k10h6f [at] news.supernews.com>,
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. <larrysheldon [at] cox.net> wrote:
>
>I used to live where there was a system in place that worked really well
>and was a lot cheaper.
>
>Law was: (my paraphrase) "It is illegal to be anywhere in the
>intersection where a red light is seen."
Yeah, there's real justice for you. You're made a criminal by the
action of the state's mechanisms.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792421 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 04:29 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792423 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 04:32 |
|
In article <alangbaker-541B4C.13023326012008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
>
>The last thing we need to do is to let people have a better idea about
>how much time they have left to jump a yellow light.
>
>We want everyone to stop when the light changes to yellow and the only
>reason that they should *not* stop is when they are too close to do so
>safely. The only things they need to know to determine that they already
>know.
Who is this "we", kemosabe? I want everyone to continue on through
the intersection as long as there's time and there's room. Stopping
on yellow without need just makes the intersection less efficient.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792424 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 04:39 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <13pn4i6i3k10h6f [at] news.supernews.com>,
> Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. <larrysheldon [at] cox.net> wrote:
>> I used to live where there was a system in place that worked really well
>> and was a lot cheaper.
>>
>> Law was: (my paraphrase) "It is illegal to be anywhere in the
>> intersection where a red light is seen."
>
> Yeah, there's real justice for you. You're made a criminal by the
> action of the state's mechanisms.
Don't quite understand that. If you don't like the law, don't drive (or
elect people that will change the law. But if the light is red, be
behind the limit line.
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792425 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 04:41 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-541B4C.13023326012008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
>> The last thing we need to do is to let people have a better idea about
>> how much time they have left to jump a yellow light.
>>
>> We want everyone to stop when the light changes to yellow and the only
>> reason that they should *not* stop is when they are too close to do so
>> safely. The only things they need to know to determine that they already
>> know.
>
> Who is this "we", kemosabe? I want everyone to continue on through
> the intersection as long as there's time and there's room. Stopping
> on yellow without need just makes the intersection less efficient.
I am me. And I want everybody from the crossing street out of the
intersection when I have the green.
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792426 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 05:14 |
|
In article <cgunp357s9a6qadg1de9hafke98t069g3e [at] 4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:27:24 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <caednQuCtIOAdwbanZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> > "E. R. Hutchison" <erhutchison [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Why not cut the cost of traffic signals by having only two bulbs? Red
> >> means
> >> stop, green means go, and when both are on it would be the equivalent of a
> >> yellow light.
> >
> >At the cost of clarity? No thanks.
>
> Railroad signals have only two bulbs, and yet convey many more aspects
> than the three-bulb signals we have on the streets - and all with
> perfect clarity.
And railway employees are better trained and can be fired for getting it
wrong.
Drivers on our continent are barely trained and realize that as long as
they don't speed or drink and drive they can do pretty much any dumbass
thing they want.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792427 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 05:15 |
|
In article <7YWdnbA5c_HWZgbanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>,
russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-541B4C.13023326012008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >The last thing we need to do is to let people have a better idea about
> >how much time they have left to jump a yellow light.
> >
> >We want everyone to stop when the light changes to yellow and the only
> >reason that they should *not* stop is when they are too close to do so
> >safely. The only things they need to know to determine that they already
> >know.
>
> Who is this "we", kemosabe? I want everyone to continue on through
> the intersection as long as there's time and there's room. Stopping
> on yellow without need just makes the intersection less efficient.
Then -- I'm sorry to say -- you're an idiot.
The point of a yellow is to get people to stop when it is safe to do so.
Your way of think has led to longer and longer times when both
directions are red as we can no longer count on people to obey the
yellow signal.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792428 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 05:16 |
|
In article <13pnvakbqp4c24c [at] news.supernews.com>,
"Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larrysheldon [at] cox.net> wrote:
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > In article <alangbaker-541B4C.13023326012008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> > Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
> >> The last thing we need to do is to let people have a better idea about
> >> how much time they have left to jump a yellow light.
> >>
> >> We want everyone to stop when the light changes to yellow and the only
> >> reason that they should *not* stop is when they are too close to do so
> >> safely. The only things they need to know to determine that they already
> >> know.
> >
> > Who is this "we", kemosabe? I want everyone to continue on through
> > the intersection as long as there's time and there's room. Stopping
> > on yellow without need just makes the intersection less efficient.
>
> I am me. And I want everybody from the crossing street out of the
> intersection when I have the green.
And you don't want to wait with both directions red...
...which is what we're getting more and more of.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792430 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 05:26 |
|
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <13pnvakbqp4c24c [at] news.supernews.com>,
> "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larrysheldon [at] cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>> In article <alangbaker-541B4C.13023326012008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
>>> Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
>>>> The last thing we need to do is to let people have a better idea about
>>>> how much time they have left to jump a yellow light.
>>>>
>>>> We want everyone to stop when the light changes to yellow and the only
>>>> reason that they should *not* stop is when they are too close to do so
>>>> safely. The only things they need to know to determine that they already
>>>> know.
>>> Who is this "we", kemosabe? I want everyone to continue on through
>>> the intersection as long as there's time and there's room. Stopping
>>> on yellow without need just makes the intersection less efficient.
>> I am me. And I want everybody from the crossing street out of the
>> intersection when I have the green.
>
> And you don't want to wait with both directions red...
>
> ..which is what we're getting more and more of.
Around here it almost seems like the red and the green both mean STOP.
They don't start moving until the yellow is about to come on. Unless
they are turning left. Then they wait for the red to come on.
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792431 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 05:36 |
|
Scott in SoCal wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:27:24 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <caednQuCtIOAdwbanZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
>> "E. R. Hutchison" <erhutchison [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Why not cut the cost of traffic signals by having only two bulbs? Red means
>>> stop, green means go, and when both are on it would be the equivalent of a
>>> yellow light.
>>
>>At the cost of clarity? No thanks.
>
>Railroad signals have only two bulbs, and yet convey many more aspects
>than the three-bulb signals we have on the streets - and all with
>perfect clarity.
Trains aren't likely to turn right on red, either. :-)
--
This temporary .sig is to identify myself, as a nym shift has occurred.
In the past, I have spent time pursuing certain trolls around, and have decided this is no longer an activity I wish to waste my time on. As such, I have kill filed R.A.D.'s two main trolls. Thus, I am retiring the 'adaptive' nyms I have generated in response to "Aunt Judy"'s nym shifts. These have included, but not been limited to:
Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)
Ted Kennedy Murdered His Pregnant Mistress (and many variants)
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792440 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 09:22 |
|
In article <cgunp357s9a6qadg1de9hafke98t069g3e [at] 4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:27:24 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <caednQuCtIOAdwbanZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> > "E. R. Hutchison" <erhutchison [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Why not cut the cost of traffic signals by having only two bulbs? Red
> >> means
> >> stop, green means go, and when both are on it would be the equivalent of a
> >> yellow light.
> >
> >At the cost of clarity? No thanks.
>
> Railroad signals have only two bulbs, and yet convey many more aspects
> than the three-bulb signals we have on the streets - and all with
> perfect clarity.
And furthermore, you're not even right...
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_railroad_signals>
Red, yellow and green.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792441 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 11:11 |
|
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
> ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
> seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
That would certainly encourage more people to run red lights.
THINK !
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792442 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 14:22 |
|
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Replace the solid yellow light in a stoplight with a yellow number that
> ticks off the time left before the light turns red. Start off with say 5
> seconds and go 5-4-3-2-1 red.
>
> I never have any trouble obeying stoplights but a lot of idiots seem to and
> using these numbered yellow lights they would eventually learn how to avoid
> running a red.
How about these old school lights:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Marshalite_traffic_signal %2C_Melbourne_Museum.jpg>
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792448 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 18:18 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Why not have yellow lights with a descending number sequence [message #792449 ] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 18:26 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 01:55:16 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.34666 Sekunden |
