That light is totally redundant. The white-on-blue right arrow as well as the solid line in the middle of the street already mandate that only right turning is allowed there.
The law tends to address this in various ways. I don't know how German law does it, but usually there is a fairly exact description of what stopping for a traffic signal entails (e.g., the driver has to be present in the vehicle). Also most jurisdictions have a catch-all law that prohibits dangerous behaviour in traffic.
So yes, there probably is a legal obligation to keep moving. If you went there and stood in front of the light for an hour a friendly but stern police officer will — legally, and within his mandate — instruct you to move along.
The charge is usually "public nuisance" or the local jurisdictional equivalent.
In case anyone is unfamiliar with the concept of public nuisance as a crime. It's pretty simple, "things that cause significant enough trouble for other people". Its the common sense escape hatch option for law enforcement being unable to see any other crime.
There is, though. General red with a specific green (the arrow pointing to the right) means you can stop, but once a car behind you wants to turn right, you need to turn right too in order to keep traffic flowing.
> Except you cannot have static signs from one direction, where the other directions have traffic signals.
I don't know about such a rule. There are some intersections in Germany where there are red and orange lights, but no green for e.g. just one direction. At such a place, when no light is on, rules according to the static signs apply, while other directions still show some light. So what you're saying doesn't hold at least temporarily there.
> This solution is neat
I don't think so. Someone unfamiliar with the place might think the light will turn eventually green, even if it's unclear where one could go if it did. It will at least cause confusion and unnecessarily draw attention away from actual traffic. And of course there's the maintenance and power cost.
I was just in Dresden over the summer and stayed at a hostel only 2 km from there! To think I got to witness such a feat of engineering... thanks so much for posting
I'm pretty sure they just took the Bing Maps "Bird's Eye view" concept and then applied their existing Google Earth 3D-mapping tech to it. Most of what was exclusively in Earth years ago has been slowly integrated into Maps.
German traffic lights are a modular design, and ones with only two or one bulb are common. (You can stick as many modules together as you wish, or remove them)
I've only seen one-bulb versions for flashing yellow lights (which are sometimes used on crossings to indicate "pedestrians are crossing" at difficult crossings, typically when more than two roads meet and the pedestrians could easily be overlooked).
I've only seen two-light versions for pedestrians (i.e. red and green).
I think I've seen other one and two bulb versions on non-public roads (e.g. industrial sites) but that's about it. I've never seen a version with four bulbs.
And you make them sound more modular than they are: while the part containing the bulb seems to be generally modular the case containing these modules is generally fixed for a certain size. So adding or removing modules after they are deployed is not as straightforward (except maybe for temporary traffic lights).
I've actually seen the auditory clue box (whatever it's called -- the ticking thing at crossings to help blind pedestrians cross safely) replace one of the bulbs (on three-bulb lights where there is a redundant second red bulb) instead of being added below the traffic light.
I forgot about turn lanes (they often omit the red light when the red phase would be shared with the regular traffic light) but I've never seen bus lights. Might be a regional thing.
In California, I've seen single-socket traffic lights in all three colors. So it wouldn't have to be custom-made. The green ones usually have a directional arrow forward (amber and red usually blink) so they could probably accomplish the same effect with stock parts: red arrow pointing right in a single socket.
This is correct, but I'm not sure the authorities take that into consideration. In my case, it's the yellow and red that look identical, but that doesn't stop them from making single flashing red lights and single flashing yellow lights. Makes life exciting sometimes.
It's not just color blind folks. San Jose's street lights are, to my eyes, damn near the same color as yellow traffic signals. I have to look for lights moving in the same plane as the road unless they're red or green.
Flashing yellow simply means caution. It is meant to draw your attention, but it has no specific legal meaning beyond that. Flashing red is equivalent to a stop sign: i.e. you must come to a complete stop, but then you may proceed if and when it is safe to do so.
EDIT: And for fun, in British Columbia, a flashing green is the same as a solid green except that it usually indicates a pedestrian operated light. I.e. it will always be green unless a pedestrian who wishes to cross pushes a button to activate it. If it is at an intersection, perpendicular traffic generally just gets a stop sign. Moreover, I recently learned that, in Ontario, a flashing green can be used to indicate an advance green. I.e. oncoming traffic is still red, so feel free to turn left.
Cool. I travel enough that this is actually worth knowing.
In most jurisdictions in North America, you are meant to yield to pedestrians at all crossings. Further, there is an implied crossing at every intersection regardless of whether there are any signs or other markings. If you see a pedestrian standing on a corner, you are supposed to stop for them. Of course, what the law says and what people actually do are not always the same.
I suspect I was unclear. A permanent flashing yellow light on top of a pole (not a traffic light) will appear next to a zebra crossing, and it indicates "this is a zebra crossing; pedestrians have priority over traffic". A flashing amber light as part of a traffic light may appear if there is a pedestrian crossing also controlled by lights, and the flashing amber light means "the pedestrians are about to be shown a red light; yield to pedestrians if they are present, but you as a driver are about to receive priority and may in any case proceed if there are no pedestrians".
The traffic rules you describe sound… ridiculous. How is one supposed to design a free-flowing intersection if anyone may halt the traffic in any particular part at any time? In the UK, one can almost always find crossings shortly downstream of a roundabout, and pedestrian crossings at traffic lights are controlled by lights.
I guess I may have also been unclear. Pedestrian crossings at traffic lights are controlled by the lights. Otherwise, pedestrians officially have priority.
In France, flashing red means an absolute stop, it's like a solid red light but for more dangerous situations. Most often for unguarded tramway level crossing. It's not very common though.
Flashing orange means yield (including to pedestrians, though few people are aware of that).
> But the truly puzzling thing, reports Berliner Zeitung, is that included in annual maintenance costs are not only replacement red light bulbs, but amber and green ones too.
I was surprised too - the article seems to address 'why on Earth has this light been red for decades' but open and leave the bigger question of 'why on Earth does powering a single light cost €5500pa'.
That is true, but the figure seems to refer to one:
> And the total cost of maintaining this one traffic light over almost three decades runs to roughly €150,000. Every year maintenance and running costs come to €5,500.
'Traffic light' is used throughout to refer to the one that's been red for 28 years; not the whole system.
Regardless, I don't think I'd have been less surprised or inclined to comment on it had the article stated the cost was €2,750pa!
I'm hopeful that this cost figure is a result of a journalist getting details almost right as they so often do.
In my local town, I've heard a figure of $100,000 to install a new light. If we assume similar costs in this case that's $3,300 per year right there and we still haven't powered it on or put any money into monitoring it nor maintaining it. The systems in place for monitoring are largely a fixed cost across all of the traffic lights in the city. I can only guess that maintenance costs are lower with newer lights and increase with age.
If the number quoted in the article includes the initial outlay to erect the signal, then I don't see the 30 year cost being that out of line. If that cost is truly only maintenance and operation, then it does seem quite excessive.
> 'why on Earth does powering a single light cost €5500pa'
Exactly. I can sorta understand the argument that if the intersection has lights then this street needs one too even if it's always red, but for me the real WTF was
if one red light costs €5,500 yearly, how much are we (over)paying for the whole system?
Exactly why I have a resistance to government 'solutions' when it comes to anything beyond constitutional basics. Governentnt is rarely more efficient than the free market/private sector. Those jackasses actually have the green and amber light bulbs included in the maintenance.. those bulbs got replaced as well. €5500 yearly -- even if a guy got paid €100 per hour, how could a a single light require that much expense? Is someone inspecting and maintaining it on a daily basis? Concierge traffic light service?
Assuming 100W light bulb and 0.3€/kWh cost, it's ~22€ for the electricity. So I guess we're left with the maintenance. These guys have pretty decent hourly rate even if light bulbs need to be changed every few months ;) But in all seriousness it seems somewhat understandable. During all these years you may need to change the pole, some elements, maybe repaint the pole, maintain cars and equipment of these guys who change the bulbs and so on. Plus it seems likely that it was calculated as city traffic light infrastructure expenses divided by the number of traffic lights. Then you have some upgrades of electronics, leds, counters or cameras in other parts of the city.
I'm not trying to say that governments spend money efficiently, just that the figure may be not as ridiculous as it seems.
Yes, and in this case it's just the amount of man hours spent monitoring the system divided by the number of lights because in this case there's not many decisions to be made by the monitors.
Another thing re maintenance: When I saw a TV segment about these lights, they mentioned that the maintenance crew will always exchange all three lights, despite yellow and green never getting used. The reasoning is again consistency: If you told the crew to specifically not replace these two bulbs, there might be a mixup and they would end up not replacing some vital bulbs.
Who still uses bulbs for traffic lights these days? Here it's all LED. Cheaper and much clearer. (The old bulb lights were sometimes really hard to see when the sun is low behind you.)
Lost of places. Here it's a mixture of lightbulb and LED lights. Also LEDs may be cheaper over time due to electricity costs, but the initial upgrade is surely more expensive than a new bulb. Then there is the problem with snow not melting and you don't know what maintenance contracts are there for bulb replacement and how long those last.
We are talking about the average cost over 30 years. There were no LEDs used in traffic lights for the better part of that time, and I have no idea about efficiency of light bulbs in the 80s.
This is a light in Ft. Walton Beach Florida. I took a picture of it years ago because I thought it was funny. It's on 35mm film in a box somewhere.... (the linked image is not mine).
That's quite unusual for an intersection that visually can be traversed also straight ahead to be right-turn only from one direction. There are such signs (209-20), or arrows on the lane, but I'd imagine people to heed a stop light more than such signage (purely from experience, many drivers ignore such signs, and even those that don't often don't adhere to the rules by not using turn signals).
Edit: Now that I've looked at the traffic light on Google StreetView, that right-turn only sign is also there. But of course, traffic lights take precedence when they exist. The intersection is also marked in a way to really discourage going straight (or left), but I'd still guess with only signs there'd be a few people who actually tried doing that.
There was one somewhere in Atlanta (where my sister lived for a while, I'm from the UK and was visiting) which is exactly the same; I made her drive back so I could take a picture of it as I thought no-one would believe me (this was in 1998, IIRC). At least after reading the comments in this thread it makes some sense now.
Do they use steady red lights for all "right turn onlys" which on the other end have opposing traffic (do not enter)? Or is this an exception to the right turn only + do not enter at the other end? Harrison and 10th[1] in SF for example.
This is an exception and a too-clever-for-its-own-good use of a traffic light. Usually we use a blue sign with a white arrow pointing right to show you can only turn right.
Thanks for the clarification. It's a bit odd in that it already has the right turn only sign but they decided to also install a traffic light --maybe the solid striped median line and the right turn only were not enough to signal people and there were enough accidents that the DoT decided to make it really obvious that vehicles should not cross.
It does not have a right turn only sign. It just has a green arrow.
The only reason you can only ever turn right is because the light stays red, if it were to turn green you'd be allowed to cross the intersection in any direction.
There are also different rules that need to be followed when crossing the intersection on account of a green arrow than, if it were merely a turn right only situation.
Germany does not usually have "right turn only"s, at all. That’s the simple answer – this traffic light is the only "right turn only" on a normal intersection in Germany. (which is why it has its own wikipedia entry, and website).
It does. "Right turns only" is a white bent arrow on a blue ground. But it does not affect precedence like a red light with a green arrow does (or a stop sign would for that matter). You often see it on T-junctions with one-way roads.
I could swear I've seen "right turn only" signs at controlled intersections when coming off the Autobahn. I think it was for a right turn onto a B road.
I wonder if this article (from 2015) has now become obsolete? I notice that the OSM of that location[0] appears to indicate that Ziegelstraße now dead-ends just before the relevant intersection, and the Bing satellite maps, though difficult to interpret with all the tree cover, appear to match that.
I came across a light like this once and noted it. After some thought though I realized that it actually makes perfect sense. The goal of the light is to never let people go straight and people can only turn on a green arrow. It is the only logical output for this goal as far as I can tell. If it were just a red arrow and a green arrow, without a full red people may think they can go straight, because there is no light preventing them explicitly. It's pretty funny.
Except, If I see a red light, I expect it to turn green eventually. On the other hand, If I see a sign telling me I'm only allowed to turn right, I know exactly what's going on. Explicit is better than implicit.
Whether or not there is a sign, you still need the light.. A sign is not sufficient as it puts the decision of when to turn on the driver of the car, instead of being dictated by the light as is the desired behavior...
The street also has that (well, a triangle "yield, no stop necessary" sign).
The thing is, in Europe, you have priorities in traffic - first the lights, when those are off/unavailable - the signs, and finally "the one on the right goes first".
The rationale behind this intersection is that you need all the vehicles obeying the same set of rules. So you can't have one car approaching the intersection obeying the signs (because no lights on that road), and another car obeying the traffic lights.
Don't quote me on this, but I think drivers are allowed to drive on a flashing yellow light without coming to a full stop, while this red light requires drivers to come to a stop.
Flashing yellow means yield, indeed. However, if the traffic lights are off the signs take precedence which in this case also just say yield. The red light with the green arrow is a hack in that it allows the intersection to work as intended, but the Stop part of it probably is not strictly necessary here.
A stop with an arrow is not sufficient as it puts the decision of when to turn on the driver of the car, instead of being dictated by the light as is the desired behavior...
This is not it. There must be signs accompanying the light saying that you cannot go straight.
Without the signs, someone would simply arrive at the intersection and wait god-knows-how long for it to turn green, until they gave up and went right :)
The reason for the light is that according to regulations, at an intersection, every road leading to it has to have lights. You cannot have three streets with lights, and one with just a sign saying "stop and yield".
It is definitely true that a sign was improve the drivers understanding and be helpful, however the light is still necessary. Stop and yield is not sufficient... that puts the decision of when to turn on the driver of the car, instead of being dictated by the light as is the desired behavior...
I still see this as the only way to communicate correctly the rules of the intersection. And yes, add a sign as well to let people know they can only turn right.
Ok, why not just put up signs saying "do not enter" and "right turn only"? And, then, just have a signal for the assumed protected right-turn (Germans do drive on the right, correct?)
This "solution" seems very confusing. In every US/Canadian jurisdiction I've visited has nothing like this German solution. Just indicate with lights, signage and road furniture that the particular route is not allowed. To technically keep the route open, but prohibit by lights seems prone to confusion, especially for individuals not from the area. Also, how do mapping apps deal with this intersection (curious)? Do mapping apps properly route through such an intersection?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The intent of a stop sign is to require the driver to stop and check that it is safe to continue before doing so. I don't see how a stop sign could fail to convey that intent.
Around here (Norway), stop signs are only used at particularly risky intersections.
To illustrate how rare they are, I can only think of two within a 100-mile radius[0] - both in places where you are about to enter a road with a 50mph/80kmh speed limit and where visibility is terrible in either direction.
[0] In fairness I should mention that 2/3 of that circle falls in the Norwegian Sea, where stop signs are exceedingly rare...
He must be talking about the four way stop crossing, a thing that is entirely unheard of in Europe. Over here, if no road gets priority, it's either a roundabout or priority to the right. In case of a deadlock, all three solution become first in first out, but only the four way stop requires everybody to shed all inertia even when the resource is not contested.
Compared to the countries of Europe where I have driven, the American traffic I have experienced often seemed excessively polite, to the point where I think that (relative to Europe) it would be more socially acceptable to drive bad because of being dangerously distracted than to drive bad due to being in a hurry.
I have long suspected a causal relation between the politeness and the four way stop, I just can't figure out the direction of causation.
Obviously roundabouts are fine. But an unsignaled intersection? Most intersections do not have nearly enough visibility to make a go vs. yield decision while you're going at full speed and traffic from the left or right is also going at full speed.
Easy one: you don't approach such an intersection at full speed. The difference between safe speed and a complete stop is substantial (even more so if you can pretty much ignore one of two directions).
Sometimes stop signs are used because of interference with other drivers (check it's safe to checking other drivers), sometimes they refer to pedestrians (check it's safe by checking pedestrians), sometimes they refer to some other kind of danger, for example it could be something like speed bumps. Basically a stop sign is there to tell you to stop (even if it's not really necessary) and watch out for something (without telling you what).
There exist all sorts of signs that actually tell the driver what to watch out for, and make the right of way situation clearer. But in North America, a stop sign is used in most situations.
Four-way stop signs are another form of silliness. They often happen in residential areas where small streets cross. In Europe you'd have 'right before left' rules that only really matter when cars actually meet; in North America you have to come to a complete halt, constantly.
I'm no driver, and am not a big fan of drivers or driving in general. But I kind of understand why drivers are so aggravated here.
You stop and then wait your turn to proceed. This is the same meaning everywhere in the US and if there are additional restrictions there will be separate signs imposing them.
- In Europe a stop sign means that you have to wait until the way is clear. Of course, you normally don't have stops on more than two of the roads crossing. (Theoretically, you can wait forever at a stop, since people on the other roads won't stop and let you through)
- In North America (I've seen it in Canada), you have stop signs on all four roads crossing and you get through in a first in first out turn.
It seems to me that
- the US uses stop signs as a way to slow down the traffic (so, no real meaning), but
- in Europe it does have a clear meaning: "it's dangerous to drive over a crossing without halting". Not only you have to be careful because you have no right of way (the "give way" sign) but you really have to stop and look at the traffic, mostly due to poor visibility (or high difference in speed).
There's two types of stop signs in the US- normal stop sign and a 4 way stop. 4 way stops are marked as such. Normal stop signs work "like Europe."
In practice stop signs don't work at all in the US. People roll through them, sometimes not even slowing down and can't understand whoo goes first at 4 way stop. So they either sit at the stop sign frantically waving on all cars that are approaching until no more cars are approaching or they just go at some random time or they just blow through the sign altogether.
Anyways, 4 way stops aren't just for slowing down traffic, though they are sometimes used that way. They are for when you have two roads coming together that both have roughly the same amount of traffic (no 'main' road) but don't want to put in a light.
The set up described in the article is actually equivalent to "come to full stop, then right turn only".
You cannot replace the light with a sign because by law traffic lights have higher precedence that traffic signs. This is for failover reasons (when traffic light is broken, no electricity etc.) So a sign on an intersection can be rendered void/meaningless if the traffic light is operational.
Having traffic lights show the same light is not that unheard of as the article makes it sound. I visited a part of Europe where right turns on intersections always showed blinking yellow light. This is equivalent to "turn right, but yield first"
I understand it can be confusing if you are coming from the US system though. The European system is highly standardized for use in all kinds of driving situations (like places with unreliable electricity), the drawback is that it can get a bit technical at times.
Yes great idea. Build a new rule into a nation-wide law just to solve a problem that needs no solving as "red light with static green right arrow" is a typical sight over here in Germany and drivers DO understand it.
It would be much better to change traffic la nation-wide so we can get rid of this ONE traffic light in Germany. Isn't it?
Changing the law and checking correct enforcement costs way more in people hours than the cost of operating a single traffic light. People underestimate the cost of regulation. Also, a consistent and simple set of rules should always be preferred and causes less human errors.
This light is an at intersection, the other three roads leading to the intersection have traffic lights too.
If there is a power cut, then the other three roads will have no lights, drivers there will treat the intersection with one set of rules. Whereas the driver on this road with a sign will treat the intersection with another, potentially causing an accident.
There is no more possibility of an accident with a stop sign than with an always-red light because the rules for both are exactly the same: stop, and proceed only when there is no conflicting traffic.
"But that's a moot point if the light isn't there in the first place."
When I said "traffic light" I meant the entire set of traffic lights of the intersection. You can't have just one lane without traffic light and all the others with. It would be highly confusing, also probably against the road laws.
The point of the traffic light taking precedence over road sign is actually part of the rules of the road. It is also required knowledge for driver exams.
> You can't have just one lane without traffic light and all the others with.
Of course you can.
> It would be highly confusing
Why?
> also probably against the road laws.
Laws can be changed. The fact that "it's the law" is a stupid reason to keep doing something that doesn't otherwise make sense. Germans of all people should understand this. (And BTW, I am German.)
From what I have gathered, the reason is that all sides of a junction must have traffic lights or none. Because traffic lights are needed at the other entrances, this one is installed to comply.
Because (as I understand the article) their laws don't allow for intersections with a mixture of traffic lights and static signs.
It's a great illustration of a point that came up a while ago in that discussion of 'what makes a good programmer vs. a great one'. A good programmer recognizes the value of consistency, and leaves the red light in there even though it's a bit ugly and inefficient, because that keeps the system consistent. A great programmer would change the rules to allow a more efficient solution which solves the real problem (ie. cars need to know what to do.)
In that case a 10x-engineer would do a quick calculation and notice that adding and enforcing yet another exception to the law is much more expensive than operating a single traffic light. Note that laws are enforced by humans rather than idling CPUs, so every single rule adds real workload.
That's an incredibly German perspective. Somehow in other parts of the world, practicality is allowed to take precedence over rigid adherence to authority, and it seems to work out fine.
Reminds me of catching hell from random old German ladies in Berlin when I crossed a sleepy residential street, without a car on the road in sight for miles, without waiting for the crosswalk light to go green. Or gasp crossing a street without using a crosswalk!
Or would realise that changing the wording slightly (not adding an exception, just updating the wording of one clause) to allow using a sign in place of a non-changing light would be a small enough change to get instantly rubber-stamped (so low administrative implementation cost), and would be trivial to enact because we already know that there's only one place where it applies.
It's not red when they're replacing the bulbs for maintenance or when there is a power outage. So this story is false. Also this is a pretty random story to be topping HN. Sure there is an edge case where this could happen, so what.
Would that light actually stop anyone? In France and Italy, traffic lights are just recommendations. We once got honked at for waiting at a red light when there was no cross traffic.
Crossing a red light is a pretty strong traffic violation in Germany. If the light was red for longer then 1 second apparently 200€, a 1 month driving suspension, and 2 out of 8 points to lose your license.
Luckily Germany abides by the international convention on human rights and doesn't have the death penalty so it'd probably be three life sentences. And because of § 54 section 1 StGB they'd be flattened into a single life sentence, which in practice translates to "at least 15 years".
The German equivalent of "life with no chance of parole" would be "Sicherheitsverwahrung" (preventive detention, consecutive to the life sentence) which is an extremely dodgy instrument that is probably in violation of the constitution and the international human rights charter if you look too closely but still used when punishing people who probably should instead be treated for difficult mental health problems.
Yes, we Germans generally stop at red lights (even a lot of pedestrians do so). I guess most of us respect most of our traffic laws (except for speed limits).
I think the only speed limit generally not observed is 60 km/h in construction sites on the motorway, which seems to be interpreted by pretty much everyone as »Continue driving 80 km/h«. Otherwise, at least around here, it's just a few drivers that go faster than allowed but the vast majority keeps to the limits.
30 km/h and even 50 km/h are respected pretty much nowhere except where there are stationary traffic cameras. I ran across an article recently (can't seem to find it again) where 90% of German drivers voluntarily admitted to not keeping to the speed limit.
For most people, breaking the speed limit does not seem a big deal. Then they run over a kid and say "I didn't mean to do that"! Well, they did in a way - keeping to the speed limit is not hard.
In most Europe (non-South) countries pretty much everyone obeys traffic lights, even if there's no traffic. That's because you could lose your driving license in addition to hefty fine for such violation and because some (most) of the intersections are watched by CCTVs now.
For pedestrians it is true, but for vehicles it is quite an exaggeration (for France). Well, for the red light, because for the yellow light is often understood as "accelerate so you can pass become it becomes red".
When I go to more respectful countries (Nordic or Germanic countries, or Japan) I am always (pleasantly) shocked by how respectful drivers are. For example in Austria people literally braked to let me pass at a pedestrian crossing on a large road. In France you can wait for minutes for a car to stop or for the traffic to stop.
> In France and Italy, traffic lights are just recommendations. We once got honked at for waiting at a red light when there was no cross traffic.
I don't know about Italy, but in France red traffic lights are absolutely respected by everyone (almost, obviously there will always be people who run red lights).
You'd lose 4 of your permit's 12 points (6 points if you're a young driver) for running a red light, and depending on the policeman's judgement your license might get suspended for up to three years. It's among the highest class of violation you can make.
If you got honked at a red light, I suspect there was something you didn't notice, like a blinking orange light allowing your lane to pass, or something like that. Or just the driver behind you honking by error while fiddling with something in their car.
When you have a steady, well working system and only one special case that causes that system to waste resources, you don't put special if cases and switches to optimize for this special case. Especially if it's one in a million.
Then the crew changing the lights would need a second checklist. The chance that they apply that wrong one to a regular intersection is not negligible.
It's harder than it looks. I see two possible interpretations of your proposal:
a) Not change the worker's checklist. That would mean they should deviate from the list, creating a dangerous precedent.
b) Adding another rule to the worker's checklist. Great, now they need to check this for every single light they are working on, which means more work (is that really cheaper than the bulbs even if it's only a few seconds per light?) and more possibilities of doing mistakes.
Not to mention that the traffic light probably refuses to turn on when not all lights are installed. That means the software needs to be changed. Yet another possibility to introduce fatal mistakes at other intersections.
I prefer paying for a bulb every now and then to putting human lives at risk. Note that changing something for this intersection means changing things for all intersections, including high-traffic complex ones.
If a variable is a null, you can assume that it should be null - but what if it became null as an error? We can put in a special code to check that, of course, and put in more branching in already complicated codebase.
Or we could admit that these two objects wasting space are quite an acceptable price to pay, relative to the scale of the system and of the price of adding additional logic to it, which always equals instability and defects.
Because the regulations state they can't have an intersection controlled by both signs and lights. The rest of the intersection is controlled by lights.
I feel like there's an analogy to software in this story. Someone put in a hack that, while ugly, works. I'm sure many city planners over the years have looked at it and thought it should be fixed. But when the current solution is working, taking the time to do the necessary testing to ensure that a new, cleaner solution works would be painful. So, 30 years later, the hack is still in place.
I know I've come across the software equivalent of this many times in my life as a developer. "Hmm...that's a really odd way of doing that, I should refactor this. But I need to write a bunch of tests for this since the original developer didn't write any. And am I really thinking through all the possible use cases properly? Even if I am, this is now a 3-day estimate, which means it will probably take 5 days, and all to "fix" something that's technically working. That's a lot of risk/time commitment for very little payout. Maybe I should just leave it be and move on to a project that's better setup to succeed."
Yep...makes total sense that this light still exists. Still doesn't explain why they replace the green and amber bulbs though...
It is more like "convention over configuration". In fact, it isn't a hack. It is the simple applyance of putting elements in a system, because of a contract.
Another good analogy in software would be UX and style guides. You'd like the user to have a consistent experience.
The replacement is like running a cron job to do some stuff and forget to check if it makes sense. It can be done better, but on the other hand, it's less complicated this way (and never change a running system).
This one red light has been removed btw. The street is a dead end towards the intersection now. But you can find another one near Wasaplatz.
I think it's evidence to the contrary. We only know how much one street light cost; we don't know (from this article) how effective the overall system that manages the whole country is. I can bet that because of these rules it's much more effective then a system where every single streetlight has to be considered and configured by a bureaucrat who makes an individual decision.
When extra3 had a segment on these red lights in their "Der alltägliche Irrsinn" ("Everyday madness") series, they said that there were three such lights in Dresden. I only know the one at Wasaplatz heading into Oskarstraße. Let's see if it survives the upcoming redesign of Wasaplatz this year.
I guess it's like the "no smoking" lights in airplanes. Even though they're always on (it's not like there's times during the flight when you can smoke and other times when you can't), they serve as an important reminder, and therefore have a purpose.
> I guess it's like the "no smoking" lights in airplanes
On newer planes the no smoking light is now only a sticker/sign. They're using the bulb that used to be for smoking now to indicate when WiFi/GSM is available (satellite based, so only above 20,000ft).
At least this is my experience flying internationally from Europe in the past years.
I'm guessing it has to do with the frequencies/power levels they're using for communications not being permitted below 20,000ft, although I haven't dug much into it.
The brochure on my flight said the plane had a 5/1MBit link (shared between all users). Not exactly what you'll watch YouTube videos on, but I suppose it works for email and message apps.
In practice Air India seems to allow it, especially on the older jets and longer flights. Unusally long lines immediately form at toilets and don't seem to subside throughout a several hour flight. The smell of cigarette smoke is attended to regularly with a good old spray of air freshener.
No, the other arms of the intersection are actively using lights so by regulation this arm must also be light regulated. They can't remove it even if they wanted to.
They are there because of the regulations. You'll also find an ashtray in the bathroom. It is because the regulations have not changed since the times that people were allowed to smoke on planes.
With respect to the ashtrays in bathrooms, I've also read [1] (no idea if it's true or not) that the FAA still requires them on the theory that, if someone illegally has a smoke in the bathroom, they want there to be somewhere safe to stub out their cigarette.
The green arrow is pretty common in former-Soviet areas (Dresden is near the Czech border). Usually it's used at crossroads, so if the crossing lane is clear or not busy you can still turn right without being held up. Here is a good example near me:
If you aren't used to it you need to be careful though, as often the street you are turning into is green for pedestrians to cross - so you need to give way. Usually you can use this lane if you are going straight, so it's somewhat courteous to go over one lane and not to block it.
At least in Norway the green arrow doesn't only tell you that you are allowed to make the turn, but it also tells you that other traffic has red light so that you know you are guaranteed the right of way.
In some places (definitely in Norway) a green arrow doesn' just imply you can turn right if safe; it tells you other traffic is halted and you've got the intersection all to yourself.
Yep, in Australia there would be a painted arrow on the road, a 'Left turn permitted on red after stopping' sign, and the opposing traffic would be stopped every few minutes for this one to go green for a few seconds just in case (so as to not confuse people, and in case in a really busy time the traffic on the opposing way was too busy to let enough people through to stop the left turn way backing up).
Red light with green arrow means you may turn right if you feel like it or wait for green. Just park your car in front of the traffic light... it'll be fine.
Parking is not allowed on direction lanes (this one is a turn-right lane). You may halt your car there, but you may not leave it (thus park it). So while you can do this, you will also block yourself from doing much else.
Of course, a DDoS attack would be possible by having a couple of friends and switching the driver every once in a while.
A witty state lawyer may also try to sue you based on StVO §30 (1), though winning that trial won't be very likely, because you can simply stop the engine (allowed at traffic lights).
They could still get you for plain old obstruction. The thing about laws that makes them different from code is that intent matters. Even if you follow the letter of the law you can still get into trouble if you blatantly obviously try to violate its spirit.
313 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 293 ms ] thread> But anyone who waits to cross into Gerokstraße could be waiting a long time - almost three decades if they are patient enough.
Did anyone notice the awesome pun ? If you wait that long, you will become a patient :-)
patient - you wait so long that you'll fall ill/die, thus becoming a hospital patient
Someone else suggested a great programmer would have changed the rules, but that would have just made the rules more complicated.
This solution is neat, because it keeps the basic rules simple while solving the problem. And to most people, they will never notice it is a problem.
So yes, there probably is a legal obligation to keep moving. If you went there and stood in front of the light for an hour a friendly but stern police officer will — legally, and within his mandate — instruct you to move along.
In case anyone is unfamiliar with the concept of public nuisance as a crime. It's pretty simple, "things that cause significant enough trouble for other people". Its the common sense escape hatch option for law enforcement being unable to see any other crime.
I don't know about such a rule. There are some intersections in Germany where there are red and orange lights, but no green for e.g. just one direction. At such a place, when no light is on, rules according to the static signs apply, while other directions still show some light. So what you're saying doesn't hold at least temporarily there.
> This solution is neat
I don't think so. Someone unfamiliar with the place might think the light will turn eventually green, even if it's unclear where one could go if it did. It will at least cause confusion and unnecessarily draw attention away from actual traffic. And of course there's the maintenance and power cost.
Does anyone know if the implementation was ever explained?
(Also, people who are used to seeing a set of three bulbs might not recognize a single red light as being a traffic light at all.)
German traffic lights are a modular design, and ones with only two or one bulb are common. (You can stick as many modules together as you wish, or remove them)
I've only seen one-bulb versions for flashing yellow lights (which are sometimes used on crossings to indicate "pedestrians are crossing" at difficult crossings, typically when more than two roads meet and the pedestrians could easily be overlooked).
I've only seen two-light versions for pedestrians (i.e. red and green).
I think I've seen other one and two bulb versions on non-public roads (e.g. industrial sites) but that's about it. I've never seen a version with four bulbs.
And you make them sound more modular than they are: while the part containing the bulb seems to be generally modular the case containing these modules is generally fixed for a certain size. So adding or removing modules after they are deployed is not as straightforward (except maybe for temporary traffic lights).
I've actually seen the auditory clue box (whatever it's called -- the ticking thing at crossings to help blind pedestrians cross safely) replace one of the bulbs (on three-bulb lights where there is a redundant second red bulb) instead of being added below the traffic light.
There’s a traffic light for the lane straight forward.
Directly next to it is one for those turning right.
The forward light has Red, Yellow and Green, the turn lane’s light has only Yellow and Green (both with the arrow overlay).
At another one, there’s lights for busses added below or at the side of the existing light, adding one, or two modules (below or at the side).
I forgot about turn lanes (they often omit the red light when the red phase would be shared with the regular traffic light) but I've never seen bus lights. Might be a regional thing.
Woe unto the traffic-light maintainer if, should the powers that be change the light timing, the light doesn't function correctly.
If the other lamps have bulbs in them, then I'll ask why. But the shape of the signal has to be consistent even when redundant.
EDIT: And for fun, in British Columbia, a flashing green is the same as a solid green except that it usually indicates a pedestrian operated light. I.e. it will always be green unless a pedestrian who wishes to cross pushes a button to activate it. If it is at an intersection, perpendicular traffic generally just gets a stop sign. Moreover, I recently learned that, in Ontario, a flashing green can be used to indicate an advance green. I.e. oncoming traffic is still red, so feel free to turn left.
In most jurisdictions in North America, you are meant to yield to pedestrians at all crossings. Further, there is an implied crossing at every intersection regardless of whether there are any signs or other markings. If you see a pedestrian standing on a corner, you are supposed to stop for them. Of course, what the law says and what people actually do are not always the same.
The traffic rules you describe sound… ridiculous. How is one supposed to design a free-flowing intersection if anyone may halt the traffic in any particular part at any time? In the UK, one can almost always find crossings shortly downstream of a roundabout, and pedestrian crossings at traffic lights are controlled by lights.
Flashing orange means yield (including to pedestrians, though few people are aware of that).
> But the truly puzzling thing, reports Berliner Zeitung, is that included in annual maintenance costs are not only replacement red light bulbs, but amber and green ones too.
*Sent from my iPhone while driving 75 on the freeway, eating fast food listening to a book on tape, navigating with Google Maps
(Not really, but people do this)
> And the total cost of maintaining this one traffic light over almost three decades runs to roughly €150,000. Every year maintenance and running costs come to €5,500.
'Traffic light' is used throughout to refer to the one that's been red for 28 years; not the whole system.
Regardless, I don't think I'd have been less surprised or inclined to comment on it had the article stated the cost was €2,750pa!
In my local town, I've heard a figure of $100,000 to install a new light. If we assume similar costs in this case that's $3,300 per year right there and we still haven't powered it on or put any money into monitoring it nor maintaining it. The systems in place for monitoring are largely a fixed cost across all of the traffic lights in the city. I can only guess that maintenance costs are lower with newer lights and increase with age.
If the number quoted in the article includes the initial outlay to erect the signal, then I don't see the 30 year cost being that out of line. If that cost is truly only maintenance and operation, then it does seem quite excessive.
Exactly. I can sorta understand the argument that if the intersection has lights then this street needs one too even if it's always red, but for me the real WTF was
if one red light costs €5,500 yearly, how much are we (over)paying for the whole system?
I'm not trying to say that governments spend money efficiently, just that the figure may be not as ridiculous as it seems.
http://www.funnysigns.net/files/never-turns-green.jpg
Edit: Now that I've looked at the traffic light on Google StreetView, that right-turn only sign is also there. But of course, traffic lights take precedence when they exist. The intersection is also marked in a way to really discourage going straight (or left), but I'd still guess with only signs there'd be a few people who actually tried doing that.
[1]https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7714317,-122.4115453,3a,75y,...
The only reason you can only ever turn right is because the light stays red, if it were to turn green you'd be allowed to cross the intersection in any direction.
There are also different rules that need to be followed when crossing the intersection on account of a green arrow than, if it were merely a turn right only situation.
(When I was a child, I actually thought that the meaning of that phrase was related to traffic lights. I was so naïve.)
[0] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.05376/13.75783
The thing is, in Europe, you have priorities in traffic - first the lights, when those are off/unavailable - the signs, and finally "the one on the right goes first".
The rationale behind this intersection is that you need all the vehicles obeying the same set of rules. So you can't have one car approaching the intersection obeying the signs (because no lights on that road), and another car obeying the traffic lights.
Without the signs, someone would simply arrive at the intersection and wait god-knows-how long for it to turn green, until they gave up and went right :)
The reason for the light is that according to regulations, at an intersection, every road leading to it has to have lights. You cannot have three streets with lights, and one with just a sign saying "stop and yield".
I still see this as the only way to communicate correctly the rules of the intersection. And yes, add a sign as well to let people know they can only turn right.
According to the maintenance mentioned in the original link, the other colors are still there...
(Google streetview shows it too, but the picture dates back from when the red light was still youthful twenty years young)
This "solution" seems very confusing. In every US/Canadian jurisdiction I've visited has nothing like this German solution. Just indicate with lights, signage and road furniture that the particular route is not allowed. To technically keep the route open, but prohibit by lights seems prone to confusion, especially for individuals not from the area. Also, how do mapping apps deal with this intersection (curious)? Do mapping apps properly route through such an intersection?
(edit: clarity)
Any jurisdiction in North America would just put a Stop or Yield sign there.
To illustrate how rare they are, I can only think of two within a 100-mile radius[0] - both in places where you are about to enter a road with a 50mph/80kmh speed limit and where visibility is terrible in either direction.
[0] In fairness I should mention that 2/3 of that circle falls in the Norwegian Sea, where stop signs are exceedingly rare...
The same as in Bucharest, Romania. That's why when I see a stop sign I make double-sure when looking for cars who have right of way over me.
Compared to the countries of Europe where I have driven, the American traffic I have experienced often seemed excessively polite, to the point where I think that (relative to Europe) it would be more socially acceptable to drive bad because of being dangerously distracted than to drive bad due to being in a hurry.
I have long suspected a causal relation between the politeness and the four way stop, I just can't figure out the direction of causation.
I still have to slow down a lot because I'm not sure how fast the other drivers are going. At that point it's not a big deal if I stop.
> even more so if you can pretty much ignore one of two directions
That sounds like an intersection that would not be a four way stop in the first place.
There exist all sorts of signs that actually tell the driver what to watch out for, and make the right of way situation clearer. But in North America, a stop sign is used in most situations.
Four-way stop signs are another form of silliness. They often happen in residential areas where small streets cross. In Europe you'd have 'right before left' rules that only really matter when cars actually meet; in North America you have to come to a complete halt, constantly.
I'm no driver, and am not a big fan of drivers or driving in general. But I kind of understand why drivers are so aggravated here.
What is it that confuses you about them?
- In Europe a stop sign means that you have to wait until the way is clear. Of course, you normally don't have stops on more than two of the roads crossing. (Theoretically, you can wait forever at a stop, since people on the other roads won't stop and let you through)
- In North America (I've seen it in Canada), you have stop signs on all four roads crossing and you get through in a first in first out turn.
It seems to me that
- the US uses stop signs as a way to slow down the traffic (so, no real meaning), but
- in Europe it does have a clear meaning: "it's dangerous to drive over a crossing without halting". Not only you have to be careful because you have no right of way (the "give way" sign) but you really have to stop and look at the traffic, mostly due to poor visibility (or high difference in speed).
In practice stop signs don't work at all in the US. People roll through them, sometimes not even slowing down and can't understand whoo goes first at 4 way stop. So they either sit at the stop sign frantically waving on all cars that are approaching until no more cars are approaching or they just go at some random time or they just blow through the sign altogether.
Anyways, 4 way stops aren't just for slowing down traffic, though they are sometimes used that way. They are for when you have two roads coming together that both have roughly the same amount of traffic (no 'main' road) but don't want to put in a light.
You cannot replace the light with a sign because by law traffic lights have higher precedence that traffic signs. This is for failover reasons (when traffic light is broken, no electricity etc.) So a sign on an intersection can be rendered void/meaningless if the traffic light is operational.
Having traffic lights show the same light is not that unheard of as the article makes it sound. I visited a part of Europe where right turns on intersections always showed blinking yellow light. This is equivalent to "turn right, but yield first"
I understand it can be confusing if you are coming from the US system though. The European system is highly standardized for use in all kinds of driving situations (like places with unreliable electricity), the drawback is that it can get a bit technical at times.
But that's a moot point if the light isn't there in the first place.
I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it, this light is stupid. What is needed is simply a pair of signs: STOP and RIGHT TURN ONLY.
It would be much better to change traffic la nation-wide so we can get rid of this ONE traffic light in Germany. Isn't it?
If there is a power cut, then the other three roads will have no lights, drivers there will treat the intersection with one set of rules. Whereas the driver on this road with a sign will treat the intersection with another, potentially causing an accident.
When I said "traffic light" I meant the entire set of traffic lights of the intersection. You can't have just one lane without traffic light and all the others with. It would be highly confusing, also probably against the road laws.
The point of the traffic light taking precedence over road sign is actually part of the rules of the road. It is also required knowledge for driver exams.
Of course you can.
> It would be highly confusing
Why?
> also probably against the road laws.
Laws can be changed. The fact that "it's the law" is a stupid reason to keep doing something that doesn't otherwise make sense. Germans of all people should understand this. (And BTW, I am German.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Germany#/media/F...
Combine that with a stop sign to force a stop and yield.
It feels like this would solve the situation without the need for traffic lights. I'm sure I'm missing something though.
It's a great illustration of a point that came up a while ago in that discussion of 'what makes a good programmer vs. a great one'. A good programmer recognizes the value of consistency, and leaves the red light in there even though it's a bit ugly and inefficient, because that keeps the system consistent. A great programmer would change the rules to allow a more efficient solution which solves the real problem (ie. cars need to know what to do.)
Reminds me of catching hell from random old German ladies in Berlin when I crossed a sleepy residential street, without a car on the road in sight for miles, without waiting for the crosswalk light to go green. Or gasp crossing a street without using a crosswalk!
https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/rote-ampel/
The German equivalent of "life with no chance of parole" would be "Sicherheitsverwahrung" (preventive detention, consecutive to the life sentence) which is an extremely dodgy instrument that is probably in violation of the constitution and the international human rights charter if you look too closely but still used when punishing people who probably should instead be treated for difficult mental health problems.
But I admit that makes for a less funny joke.
30 km/h and even 50 km/h are respected pretty much nowhere except where there are stationary traffic cameras. I ran across an article recently (can't seem to find it again) where 90% of German drivers voluntarily admitted to not keeping to the speed limit.
For most people, breaking the speed limit does not seem a big deal. Then they run over a kid and say "I didn't mean to do that"! Well, they did in a way - keeping to the speed limit is not hard.
I don't know about Italy, but in France red traffic lights are absolutely respected by everyone (almost, obviously there will always be people who run red lights).
You'd lose 4 of your permit's 12 points (6 points if you're a young driver) for running a red light, and depending on the policeman's judgement your license might get suspended for up to three years. It's among the highest class of violation you can make.
If you got honked at a red light, I suspect there was something you didn't notice, like a blinking orange light allowing your lane to pass, or something like that. Or just the driver behind you honking by error while fiddling with something in their car.
a) Not change the worker's checklist. That would mean they should deviate from the list, creating a dangerous precedent.
b) Adding another rule to the worker's checklist. Great, now they need to check this for every single light they are working on, which means more work (is that really cheaper than the bulbs even if it's only a few seconds per light?) and more possibilities of doing mistakes.
Not to mention that the traffic light probably refuses to turn on when not all lights are installed. That means the software needs to be changed. Yet another possibility to introduce fatal mistakes at other intersections.
I prefer paying for a bulb every now and then to putting human lives at risk. Note that changing something for this intersection means changing things for all intersections, including high-traffic complex ones.
Or we could admit that these two objects wasting space are quite an acceptable price to pay, relative to the scale of the system and of the price of adding additional logic to it, which always equals instability and defects.
I know I've come across the software equivalent of this many times in my life as a developer. "Hmm...that's a really odd way of doing that, I should refactor this. But I need to write a bunch of tests for this since the original developer didn't write any. And am I really thinking through all the possible use cases properly? Even if I am, this is now a 3-day estimate, which means it will probably take 5 days, and all to "fix" something that's technically working. That's a lot of risk/time commitment for very little payout. Maybe I should just leave it be and move on to a project that's better setup to succeed."
Yep...makes total sense that this light still exists. Still doesn't explain why they replace the green and amber bulbs though...
Another good analogy in software would be UX and style guides. You'd like the user to have a consistent experience.
The replacement is like running a cron job to do some stuff and forget to check if it makes sense. It can be done better, but on the other hand, it's less complicated this way (and never change a running system).
This one red light has been removed btw. The street is a dead end towards the intersection now. But you can find another one near Wasaplatz.
On newer planes the no smoking light is now only a sticker/sign. They're using the bulb that used to be for smoking now to indicate when WiFi/GSM is available (satellite based, so only above 20,000ft).
At least this is my experience flying internationally from Europe in the past years.
Wha?
The brochure on my flight said the plane had a 5/1MBit link (shared between all users). Not exactly what you'll watch YouTube videos on, but I suppose it works for email and message apps.
https://www.panasonic.aero/inflight-connectivity/global-comm...
I'm not 100% certain, but I'm willing to bet it's still permitted in some countries.
http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2016/07/27/smoking-on...
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/why-do-plane...
But in my neck of the woods we'd probably show a green right arrow when intersecting traffic from the left is stopped at a red light.
https://www.google.lt/maps/@54.7056651,25.3040075,3a,75y,99.... (And if you go forward two steps the Google car goes through the red light :D)
If you aren't used to it you need to be careful though, as often the street you are turning into is green for pedestrians to cross - so you need to give way. Usually you can use this lane if you are going straight, so it's somewhat courteous to go over one lane and not to block it.
Edit: ninja'd by runholm
But a Green arrow means you can proceed in the direction of the arrow and you have right of way with no other intersecting traffic.
Red light with green arrow means you may turn right if you feel like it or wait for green. Just park your car in front of the traffic light... it'll be fine.
Of course, a DDoS attack would be possible by having a couple of friends and switching the driver every once in a while.
A witty state lawyer may also try to sue you based on StVO §30 (1), though winning that trial won't be very likely, because you can simply stop the engine (allowed at traffic lights).