I don't know who removed the comment by 123iii. I took it as a joke. He said: "Take turns? According to social convention? Screw that... just stay out of my way and everything will be fine."
Interesting that I've never considered this before. Road lights actually create a horrible moral hazard don't they. Not only do they cause congestion because they have been dreamed up by bureaucrats but people actually pay less mind to the world around them with lights. Curious indeed.....
It's not government that inspired or pioneered these changes, indeed too often they are part of the problem. This story is about an individual campaigner and a responsive council.
This is absolutely brilliant. The British people are wonderful people do not get me wrong, but why are they surprised? I will tell you why. They live in a country to where from cradle to grave they live in a government controlled system. They think government actually needs to take care of them because they are incompetent. It's bs. That woman probably wasted a year of her life at that one light if she grew up there. Thank you government. Take the chains off. Free Europe! And kill the EU TOO!
There really needs to be an alternative. Sitting at a light for over 3 minutes while no one is moving gets old. We are getting 0 MPG and pouring tons of toxic emissions in the air just sitting there. I would be very happy if my city adopted a no stop light policy. My city has less than 60,000 people, but it takes over 20 minutes to travel 15 blocks thanks to red lights.
I was traveling with a friend of mine and his young daughter one day and she asked what the red light met and he said stop...and green and he said go...and yellow and he jockingly said GO FASTER !!! I laugh at the joke but also at the fact that that is what a lot of people do . ( of course later he told her what it really met )
Yield to the right is an advance on yielding to two streams of traffic coming at you from opposite directions, but it can be inept, e.g. from a semi-concealed road. Also, it's an engineering model based on status of road or direction of travel, and doesn't help with speed calming. To my mind, filter-in-turn based on time of arrival - a social model - is the optimum solution because it reflects our human nature. It allows infinite filtering opportunities and expressions of fellow feeling.
In Belgium, they have a «yield to the right» rule, so there's hardly ever a stop sign or light. When you come to a crossroad, you slow down and give priority to vehicules that come from the right, and thus you have priority on cars on your left etc... so no one ever really stops. It's pretty cool. Better than here in Canada.
Thanks for your comments. Interested parties may be interested in visiting and possibly joining Free to Choose Free To Move, and/or my Facebook page, Roads FiT for People.
Excellent experiment and great follow-through with the empirical documenting via video. With the established driver culture, I would surmise a guess that this will be a natural progression in many environments. Dense city streets might be another issue.
traffic lights also force you to pay attention to arbitrary signals. for example, the ambiguity of amber lights when you're traveling at speed, instead of paying attention to what's actually happening on the road...
fascinating series! something not mentioned is that traffic signals are a source of revenue, at least in the states. they're upping the stakes by installing traffic cameras which automatically hand out tickets if you "run the red"... i say, follow the money--it's not just the traffic control industry, but courts and cops that also get paid.
In most cases, roundabouts are an improvement on signal control, but I have three reservations: they take up a lot of road space, which may be less of an issue in Oz; they encourage vehicle domination at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists; at peak times, they can produce unbroken streams of priority traffic. Could filter in turn be the best of all worlds?
I am a police officer in a large town in Western Australia with a population of approx 32'000 people. We have countless roundabouts and not one traffic light. These roundabouts keep traffic moving and drivers only have to 'give way' to traffic in one direction, so are far safer. Sure, there are minor bumps, mainly caused by inattention or inconsiderate driving, but the number of serious or fatal crashes at these intersections over the past 4 years I've been in this town are zero!
frybucket, thanks for your comment. Yes, the main thing is for people to be given the freedom to act sociably, but the rules of the road have been infecting us with anti-social priority for so long, that for FiT to work properly, culture change and roadway redesign are also needed, along with a number of other innovations which I'm keeping up my sleeve for the time being ...
It was mentioned at the end that a few problems remain with the system and that redesigning intersections may be necessary for FiT to work. Even without redesign the results here were remarkable!
How do you know the equal (or no) priority, filter-in-turn approach would not work at major junctions - have you tested it? No, you're making assumptions based on defective thinking that supports a flawed system. As stated in Part 1, I've seen lights out during power cuts across London and things were never better. Of course I concede that major instersections might need peak-time control, but control should be the last resort, not the first!
Removing lights can only work for intersections with little trafic where lights make a stop when it's safe to go (as said in part1), removing lights from major intersections would result in chaos (everybody would get inside intersection blocking eachother or just one direction would progress not allowing others to participate, on fast intersection cars would ALWAYS have to slow down from very high speeds...) If everything would be so simple why building interchanges for highways? Don't be naive.
Yes, in the original meaning of anarchy - self-government - FiT (filter in turn) is indeed an example of successful anarchy. It shows we can coexist peacefully and efficiently when free to use our own judgement. Ironically, the negative meaning of anarchy - violence - is prompted by traffic regulation which treats us like zombies and makes us see red. We need only one rule - drive on the left (or right), and one obvious bit of advice - mind how you go. Minarchy (minimal government) not anarchy.
Fair comment. FYI, I instigated the trial and made the video with no council support or funding. The traffic engineering firm, Colin Buchanan, with whom I am loosely associated, was commissioned to run the trial. - I just tried to post this with a link to their report, but I keep getting "Error. Try again", so now I'm trying to reply without the link in case that's the reason for the error message. If you want the link, go to FiT Roads and email me, then I'll reply to your email.
Is it necessary? No-one is doing anything illegal. Being able to read the plates is important at the point where I pan to follow the Honda Civic, because you can see it has to stop again at red only 20 metres after the last red signal ...
Clearly at major intersections at peak times, some control might be necessary. My point is that control should be used as a last resort, not the first. On the two occasions when I've seen lights out across central London, congestion vanished and good-natured filtering thrived. Have a look at Part 1 of the video (Roads unfit for People).
I really like this mini documentary because it opens the floodgates for the reexamination of other forms of needless bureaucracy where the allowance of self governance might result in a more efficient process and more pleasant experience for everyone. Hell, let's try this at the DMV then, eh? ;P
You're right, it's not really amazing at all. I suppose the surprise is to see it documented and shaped into a coherent idea which challenges the dogma that traffic lights are vital for efficiency and safety. Far from it.
@mirbez Likely only works where people are polite. Not really for many areas in the U.S.A. (or Australia where I'm from) where people tend to insist on their own rights without regard for their responsibilities.
People are intrinsically polite. What makes them intolerant and aggressive on the road is regulation that treats them like idiots. Why should we wait at red when no-one is using the green? Why can we judge when it's OK to go if we're on foot, but not if we're on wheels? Who is the better judge of when, or how fast to go - you and me at the time and the place, or lights and limits fixed by absent regulators? Given responsibility and choice, people become human again.
The question isn't whether or not we are polite. I assume we are. The question is whether or not we are intrinsically efficient on the large scale. Let us use the example of when the traffic lights are out at major intersections. Traffic slows radically as we are all too polite, we allow one car to go at a time from each side as if it were a stop sign. This is inefficient. Traffic lights make traffic move faster at large intersections. That is their purpose.
How often is traffic bunched at lights with empty capacity all around? Twice I've seen lights out across London. Congestion vanished into thin air. At major junctions at peak times, some control might be needed. But we won't know until we've tried it. Filter in turn (FiT) allows simultaneous filtering (efficient) at low speeds (safe) and low revs (low-polluting). Controls cause consecutive queueing (inefficient), inappropriate speeds (dangerous), and stop-start (high-polluting)
I agree that sometimes it can be less than optimal. This can be fought with ground sensors. I will still admit, with a perfect traffic light system, there will be times when traffic is impeded by the lights. These times are heavily outweighed, by the times when it is efficient. FiT is useful at small interchanges with obvious merging patterns, and I am for its integration in those areas. But to argue that the lights be removed, when they are such a great boon, is absurd.
Traffic lights a boon? I might reply in more detail later, but for now let's just agree to differ. I'll mention that three "accidents" of which I or friends were innocent victims all occured at lights. My friend spent two years in hospital, and is semi-disabled. She was arriving home, key in the front door. A car trying to beat a red light ricocheted off a taxi already in motion, and hit her. To my mind, lghts are symbols of an unfit system based on the fatal flaw of priority.
I dont know if this would work around where i'm from. Unless everyone knew where every inersection was and that there were no lights, people would just drive too fast. I mean in this video people were driving what? 30 mph? people on most roads drive like 40 mph sometimes even faster. And this would be pretty difficult to do on expressways too.
It's priority and the green light that license speed and aggression. Remove them, and you create a level playing-field where road-users can interact as equals. Do we barge in front of cashpoint queues? Why should we act differently on the road?
Wow, that's quite interesting. The intersection itself didn't look all that promising with all those stops and traffic lights, but according to the video, it seems to have worked out quite well! Though they seem to be better drivers than what I see here in Chicago, so this may not work everywhere.
Yeah, right, try doing this ins São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro or Caracas, where traffic it's a thousand times more congested and people drive aggresively and it turns out as daily battles. The British with their phlegmatic nature can handle this without trouble. I can imagine huge deadlocks and everyone screaming bloody murder if this happens in my country
Generally speaking, in the US, if you didn't have Traffic Control, people would be killed on a regular basis. Since we have highways / freeways where people regularly do 70-80mph(113kph-128kph)
@compubomb The German autobahn has no speed limit, with the *minimum* stated limit being around 130-135kph. People often go 160 or more. They have less fatalities than U.S. roads by a huge margin.
Sadly, I don't think it's the speed which kills Americans, I think it's just the stupidity. I moved to Canada a while back for business and it's amazing how bad the drivers here are. They can't merge, they can't pass, they can't even signal properly. It's the same in America, only they drive faster.
Anyway, just wanted to point out that the lights went out near where i live on wednesday. saw 3 accidents (light accidents thankfully) in the time it took to try and creep across the junction
This is only for a few moments.. over a few years I highly doubt things to continue to stay as fluid. What about the older people? What about the younger people? Handicap? You honestly think things would be better without traffic lights???
Did you even watch? 8 months is more than a few moments. In that time, there were no pedestrian injuries, and only a couple of shunts (British for fender-bender).
I honestly think things MIGHT be better without traffic lights in certain situations, though I have my doubts when I see how horrible the average American driver is.
This is ONLY working because it was just implemented. Drivers were clearly cautious because they were not sure what other drivers would do. Lets check back a couple months and see what happens.
I know personally, that when I try to cross a street, without a traffic light, I am often waiting forever, because cars simply do not stop.
Why does it matter when this was filmed, the writeup at the end is from 8 months later and says the intersection now works much better than before and is perfectly safe.
lol i remember a story like this where they tried this out and didnt tell anyone they were doing this, it was chaos and massive traffic jam. info and public awareness is the key.
@JAVIERLIVAS and @startreking2007. I think you're missing the point. This proves we don't need ANY lights, whether green, yellow or red. It requires a paradigm shift; that people can cooperate in a mutually beneficial way without tyrannical green/yellow/red traffic lights.
You've completely missed the point of the video. The drivers yield by assumption of the principle "first come, first serve". There need not be a light that tells the driver to yield, because the driver already has it in his mind. The yield light would be completely irrelevant and most likely cause more harm than good.
The ideal situation is PERHAPS to have the lights where a RED means YIELD, not STOP. This is a new standard and would become very dangerous if people were not properly instructed about the new meaning of RED.
@SilverBars42 I'm not sure it has to be received that way. If these changes decrease the amount of time spent idling at lights, it would theoretically decrease pollution, so I imagine it would be embraced.
This is a clear demonstration that traffic lights are bad for society, the economy, local government finances and the environment. We have a situation where traffic lights result in unnecessary delays, high acceleration and speeds and sharp breaking on busy junctions. We also have traffic lights installed on junctions where there is very little traffic, leaving motorists, cyclists and pedestrians stranded, whilst well intentioned traffic engineers perceive that they have done the right thing.
@SadegoGG Not all banks are bad... but big landowners... Look up Henry George and Land Value Tax. We work, our employer pay employment (income) tax to the state who invest in schools, etc. and as a result make places more desirable... and rents rise. So the harder we work, the more tax we pay and the more our landlord can charge us in rent whilst sat at home being unproductive.
I was mostly discussing the federal reserve and other centralized banks around the world.
Also, your idea of money is completely limited. You do not have to work hard to make a lot of money. All you need to make a lot of money is a plan. I bet there person who gave you the idea you have to work really hard to have a lot of money doesn't have a lot of money. Also, working for money is the absolute worst way to make money.
Lets not forget that Majority of Americans are absolutely retarded when it comes to driving. This would need a god damn generation of preparing for a change like this. This requires way too much situational awareness for American Drivers.
Anarchy works, if only we embrace it. :-)
KyleSkullz 4 months ago 3
@KyleSkullz you forgot about the roads? o.O
balance FTW.
Codylupardus 3 months ago
@Codylupardus
hahahaha... :-D
The Social Contract: You rob me, build a road, I use the road, you tell me i owe you for the road.
KyleSkullz 3 months ago
I don't know who removed the comment by 123iii. I took it as a joke. He said: "Take turns? According to social convention? Screw that... just stay out of my way and everything will be fine."
mjcassini 4 months ago
Comment removed
123iii123iii 4 months ago
Interesting that I've never considered this before. Road lights actually create a horrible moral hazard don't they. Not only do they cause congestion because they have been dreamed up by bureaucrats but people actually pay less mind to the world around them with lights. Curious indeed.....
s0beit 6 months ago
It's not government that inspired or pioneered these changes, indeed too often they are part of the problem. This story is about an individual campaigner and a responsive council.
mjcassini 7 months ago
This is absolutely brilliant. The British people are wonderful people do not get me wrong, but why are they surprised? I will tell you why. They live in a country to where from cradle to grave they live in a government controlled system. They think government actually needs to take care of them because they are incompetent. It's bs. That woman probably wasted a year of her life at that one light if she grew up there. Thank you government. Take the chains off. Free Europe! And kill the EU TOO!
SuperGuitarman69 8 months ago
There really needs to be an alternative. Sitting at a light for over 3 minutes while no one is moving gets old. We are getting 0 MPG and pouring tons of toxic emissions in the air just sitting there. I would be very happy if my city adopted a no stop light policy. My city has less than 60,000 people, but it takes over 20 minutes to travel 15 blocks thanks to red lights.
ChickenC0re 9 months ago
Hey, it's Dawn French @ 4:24 .
ChickenC0re 9 months ago
Emergent spontaneous order is amazing. Few people understand it.
Esoparagon 9 months ago
I would like to see this from a bird's-eye point of view.
MarielynetteJohnson 10 months ago
Thanks Luc, I hadn't heard that "joke" before - very good (or bad) - it speaks volumes!
mjcassini 1 year ago
I was traveling with a friend of mine and his young daughter one day and she asked what the red light met and he said stop...and green and he said go...and yellow and he jockingly said GO FASTER !!! I laugh at the joke but also at the fact that that is what a lot of people do . ( of course later he told her what it really met )
luc649 1 year ago
Yield to the right is an advance on yielding to two streams of traffic coming at you from opposite directions, but it can be inept, e.g. from a semi-concealed road. Also, it's an engineering model based on status of road or direction of travel, and doesn't help with speed calming. To my mind, filter-in-turn based on time of arrival - a social model - is the optimum solution because it reflects our human nature. It allows infinite filtering opportunities and expressions of fellow feeling.
mjcassini 1 year ago
In Belgium, they have a «yield to the right» rule, so there's hardly ever a stop sign or light. When you come to a crossroad, you slow down and give priority to vehicules that come from the right, and thus you have priority on cars on your left etc... so no one ever really stops. It's pretty cool. Better than here in Canada.
janiegiroux 1 year ago
It is a lot more difficult to get the government to give up their powers for a cause then it is to get them to increase it for a cause.
freemarketeer67 1 year ago
Thanks for your comments. Interested parties may be interested in visiting and possibly joining Free to Choose Free To Move, and/or my Facebook page, Roads FiT for People.
mjcassini 1 year ago
I'd like to see the same experiment in African cities (seriously)
MrGAB4444 1 year ago
Excellent experiment and great follow-through with the empirical documenting via video. With the established driver culture, I would surmise a guess that this will be a natural progression in many environments. Dense city streets might be another issue.
miscreanity 1 year ago
traffic lights also force you to pay attention to arbitrary signals. for example, the ambiguity of amber lights when you're traveling at speed, instead of paying attention to what's actually happening on the road...
newjoiseyboy 1 year ago
fascinating series! something not mentioned is that traffic signals are a source of revenue, at least in the states. they're upping the stakes by installing traffic cameras which automatically hand out tickets if you "run the red"... i say, follow the money--it's not just the traffic control industry, but courts and cops that also get paid.
newjoiseyboy 1 year ago
America is catching up. We already have 15 roundabouts (traffic circles) in our country. We are expecting 10 more to be built by the end of 2011.
Ray G.
Oregon, USA
ray11220 1 year ago
Human beings can actually manage better without government coercion! Who knew?!
carcabe 1 year ago
In most cases, roundabouts are an improvement on signal control, but I have three reservations: they take up a lot of road space, which may be less of an issue in Oz; they encourage vehicle domination at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists; at peak times, they can produce unbroken streams of priority traffic. Could filter in turn be the best of all worlds?
mjcassini 1 year ago
I am a police officer in a large town in Western Australia with a population of approx 32'000 people. We have countless roundabouts and not one traffic light. These roundabouts keep traffic moving and drivers only have to 'give way' to traffic in one direction, so are far safer. Sure, there are minor bumps, mainly caused by inattention or inconsiderate driving, but the number of serious or fatal crashes at these intersections over the past 4 years I've been in this town are zero!
GMPWAPOL 1 year ago
frybucket, thanks for your comment. Yes, the main thing is for people to be given the freedom to act sociably, but the rules of the road have been infecting us with anti-social priority for so long, that for FiT to work properly, culture change and roadway redesign are also needed, along with a number of other innovations which I'm keeping up my sleeve for the time being ...
mjcassini 1 year ago
It was mentioned at the end that a few problems remain with the system and that redesigning intersections may be necessary for FiT to work. Even without redesign the results here were remarkable!
frybucket 1 year ago
How do you know the equal (or no) priority, filter-in-turn approach would not work at major junctions - have you tested it? No, you're making assumptions based on defective thinking that supports a flawed system. As stated in Part 1, I've seen lights out during power cuts across London and things were never better. Of course I concede that major instersections might need peak-time control, but control should be the last resort, not the first!
mjcassini 1 year ago
Removing lights can only work for intersections with little trafic where lights make a stop when it's safe to go (as said in part1), removing lights from major intersections would result in chaos (everybody would get inside intersection blocking eachother or just one direction would progress not allowing others to participate, on fast intersection cars would ALWAYS have to slow down from very high speeds...) If everything would be so simple why building interchanges for highways? Don't be naive.
janhanjanhan 1 year ago
@janhanjanhan but how do you know? do you "just know"? is it "obvious"? please, enlighten the rest of us benighted fools...
newjoiseyboy 1 year ago
Yes, in the original meaning of anarchy - self-government - FiT (filter in turn) is indeed an example of successful anarchy. It shows we can coexist peacefully and efficiently when free to use our own judgement. Ironically, the negative meaning of anarchy - violence - is prompted by traffic regulation which treats us like zombies and makes us see red. We need only one rule - drive on the left (or right), and one obvious bit of advice - mind how you go. Minarchy (minimal government) not anarchy.
mjcassini 1 year ago 2
anarchy at its finest?
crimeforadime 1 year ago
Yes, in England we drive on the left. Very funny though!
mjcassini 1 year ago
At 1:49 I was like, "Is that a baby driving?!" and then I remembered that this is in Europe.
Marth8880 1 year ago
Fair comment. FYI, I instigated the trial and made the video with no council support or funding. The traffic engineering firm, Colin Buchanan, with whom I am loosely associated, was commissioned to run the trial. - I just tried to post this with a link to their report, but I keep getting "Error. Try again", so now I'm trying to reply without the link in case that's the reason for the error message. If you want the link, go to FiT Roads and email me, then I'll reply to your email.
mjcassini 1 year ago
Let's see some more empirical data.
mutualmonster 1 year ago
Is it necessary? No-one is doing anything illegal. Being able to read the plates is important at the point where I pan to follow the Honda Civic, because you can see it has to stop again at red only 20 metres after the last red signal ...
mjcassini 1 year ago
You'd maybe want to blur out the car numberplates?
JAStewart 1 year ago
@JAStewart That's not even an applicable law for an internet video.... do you even understand why you said that?
busessuck1 1 year ago
this only works in a small town. try this at 5th ave and broadway
badjer1785 1 year ago
@badjer1785
Clearly at major intersections at peak times, some control might be necessary. My point is that control should be used as a last resort, not the first. On the two occasions when I've seen lights out across central London, congestion vanished and good-natured filtering thrived. Have a look at Part 1 of the video (Roads unfit for People).
Martin
mjcassini 1 year ago
I really like this mini documentary because it opens the floodgates for the reexamination of other forms of needless bureaucracy where the allowance of self governance might result in a more efficient process and more pleasant experience for everyone. Hell, let's try this at the DMV then, eh? ;P
SalientK 1 year ago
in my country they will probably kill each other for the way lol
ehh
fumfulapenguin 1 year ago
@fumfulapenguin That's what everyone assumes. Unless you're from Egypt, I doubt it!
robinberghuys 1 year ago
What's so amazing about this? This happens all the time when our traffic lights are down.
fragfestchampion 1 year ago
@fragfestchampion -
You're right, it's not really amazing at all. I suppose the surprise is to see it documented and shaped into a coherent idea which challenges the dogma that traffic lights are vital for efficiency and safety. Far from it.
mjcassini 1 year ago 2
@mjcassini
I guess. Traffic lights just make people angry.
fragfestchampion 1 year ago
Saw similar results, but with heavier traffic volumes, in metro Manila during a three day power outage.
JustDisGuy 1 year ago
They have more complex traffic patterns than American roads too. Really don't see why it wouldn't work in the US.
mirbez 1 year ago
@mirbez Likely only works where people are polite. Not really for many areas in the U.S.A. (or Australia where I'm from) where people tend to insist on their own rights without regard for their responsibilities.
neoporcupine 1 year ago
@neoporcupine That's what everyone expected in the UK as well. You'd be surprised.
robinberghuys 1 year ago
@neoporcupine -
People are intrinsically polite. What makes them intolerant and aggressive on the road is regulation that treats them like idiots. Why should we wait at red when no-one is using the green? Why can we judge when it's OK to go if we're on foot, but not if we're on wheels? Who is the better judge of when, or how fast to go - you and me at the time and the place, or lights and limits fixed by absent regulators? Given responsibility and choice, people become human again.
mjcassini 1 year ago 13
@mjcassini -
The question isn't whether or not we are polite. I assume we are. The question is whether or not we are intrinsically efficient on the large scale. Let us use the example of when the traffic lights are out at major intersections. Traffic slows radically as we are all too polite, we allow one car to go at a time from each side as if it were a stop sign. This is inefficient. Traffic lights make traffic move faster at large intersections. That is their purpose.
Bishop134265 1 year ago
@Bishop134265
How often is traffic bunched at lights with empty capacity all around? Twice I've seen lights out across London. Congestion vanished into thin air. At major junctions at peak times, some control might be needed. But we won't know until we've tried it. Filter in turn (FiT) allows simultaneous filtering (efficient) at low speeds (safe) and low revs (low-polluting). Controls cause consecutive queueing (inefficient), inappropriate speeds (dangerous), and stop-start (high-polluting)
mjcassini 1 year ago
@mjcassini
I agree that sometimes it can be less than optimal. This can be fought with ground sensors. I will still admit, with a perfect traffic light system, there will be times when traffic is impeded by the lights. These times are heavily outweighed, by the times when it is efficient. FiT is useful at small interchanges with obvious merging patterns, and I am for its integration in those areas. But to argue that the lights be removed, when they are such a great boon, is absurd.
Bishop134265 1 year ago
@Bishop134265
Traffic lights a boon? I might reply in more detail later, but for now let's just agree to differ. I'll mention that three "accidents" of which I or friends were innocent victims all occured at lights. My friend spent two years in hospital, and is semi-disabled. She was arriving home, key in the front door. A car trying to beat a red light ricocheted off a taxi already in motion, and hit her. To my mind, lghts are symbols of an unfit system based on the fatal flaw of priority.
mjcassini 1 year ago
@mjcassini - well said, it's a case of common sense winning the day here.
RJL230779 1 year ago
I dont know if this would work around where i'm from. Unless everyone knew where every inersection was and that there were no lights, people would just drive too fast. I mean in this video people were driving what? 30 mph? people on most roads drive like 40 mph sometimes even faster. And this would be pretty difficult to do on expressways too.
shwong866 1 year ago
@shwong866 -
It's priority and the green light that license speed and aggression. Remove them, and you create a level playing-field where road-users can interact as equals. Do we barge in front of cashpoint queues? Why should we act differently on the road?
mjcassini 1 year ago 5
We don't need Government running every small aspect of our lives!
People do it better!
Libertarian Party UK
LPUK(dot)ORG(dot)UK
We need more of this sort of thing
Andronichuk 1 year ago
Great news. That's very encouraging.
eugenetswong 1 year ago
Very interesting.
leonfortej 1 year ago
Death to the state o/
Praetonia 1 year ago
Wow, that's quite interesting. The intersection itself didn't look all that promising with all those stops and traffic lights, but according to the video, it seems to have worked out quite well! Though they seem to be better drivers than what I see here in Chicago, so this may not work everywhere.
vitruvian8807 1 year ago
Yeah, right, try doing this ins São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro or Caracas, where traffic it's a thousand times more congested and people drive aggresively and it turns out as daily battles. The British with their phlegmatic nature can handle this without trouble. I can imagine huge deadlocks and everyone screaming bloody murder if this happens in my country
reyabreu 1 year ago
portishead is also a great band!!
leshark 1 year ago
No lights 5AM to 10PM lights 10PM to 5AM
yngbullwnohorns 1 year ago
Generally speaking, in the US, if you didn't have Traffic Control, people would be killed on a regular basis. Since we have highways / freeways where people regularly do 70-80mph(113kph-128kph)
compubomb 1 year ago
@compubomb The German autobahn has no speed limit, with the *minimum* stated limit being around 130-135kph. People often go 160 or more. They have less fatalities than U.S. roads by a huge margin.
Sadly, I don't think it's the speed which kills Americans, I think it's just the stupidity. I moved to Canada a while back for business and it's amazing how bad the drivers here are. They can't merge, they can't pass, they can't even signal properly. It's the same in America, only they drive faster.
Blahbahbooey 1 year ago
@compubomb so do we in england...
Anyway, just wanted to point out that the lights went out near where i live on wednesday. saw 3 accidents (light accidents thankfully) in the time it took to try and creep across the junction
auto98 1 year ago
Yeah, try doing this in any place where people drive like complete tools. People don't even pull over when they hear sirens where I live.
Drzztdourden 1 year ago
I look forward to a time when cars drive themselves, they could possibly come inches from each other in precise maneuvers to minimize delays.
virtuosoikingpin 1 year ago
Good luck with this actually working over a long period of time and around angry drivers.
Haz3rd 1 year ago
This is only for a few moments.. over a few years I highly doubt things to continue to stay as fluid. What about the older people? What about the younger people? Handicap? You honestly think things would be better without traffic lights???
Caprican28 1 year ago
@Caprican28
Did you even watch? 8 months is more than a few moments. In that time, there were no pedestrian injuries, and only a couple of shunts (British for fender-bender).
I honestly think things MIGHT be better without traffic lights in certain situations, though I have my doubts when I see how horrible the average American driver is.
knowsguy 1 year ago
@knowsguy Well I was speaking for over here in American anyway.
Caprican28 1 year ago
But if the lights were sychronized, it would be better.
I wonder if it would work with more cars coming through.
I do agree that we have way to many traffic lights in the US.
adriaan880121958 1 year ago
It's no fair, they're British.
knumbk 1 year ago
that's quite interesting, fascinating even
FloodPower 1 year ago
This is ONLY working because it was just implemented. Drivers were clearly cautious because they were not sure what other drivers would do. Lets check back a couple months and see what happens.
I know personally, that when I try to cross a street, without a traffic light, I am often waiting forever, because cars simply do not stop.
micredable 1 year ago
@micredable this is 8 months later dumbass
Robstailey 1 year ago
@Robstailey
This was filmed days later. The woman at 2:15 says so herself.
Sure, the writeup at the end claims that it is still like this, but the actual video footage is from days after this was implemented, not 8 months.
Fuck yourself.
micredable 1 year ago
@micredable
Why does it matter when this was filmed, the writeup at the end is from 8 months later and says the intersection now works much better than before and is perfectly safe.
Yea. Fuck you.
Robstailey 1 year ago
Good old bristol! long ashton!
rgould2 1 year ago
looks like there might be more vehicle accidents.
thundergod989 1 year ago
@thundergod989 did you not read the end?
Robstailey 1 year ago
Funny it does look like the kid is driving, if this was the US.. in UK drivers side is on the right side of the vehicle
rjohnsonbeep 1 year ago
yeah do this in new jersey and see what happens.
misternils 1 year ago
Unfortunately this wouldn't work with Americans.
perishingflames 1 year ago
lol i remember a story like this where they tried this out and didnt tell anyone they were doing this, it was chaos and massive traffic jam. info and public awareness is the key.
gadafgadaf 1 year ago
@1:48
BABY IS DRIVING? HOW CAN THAT BE!
Mexikun 1 year ago 2
1:48
OMG THERE'S A BABY DRIVING@@@!@!@!@!@ONEONEONE!
robotsongs 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
robotsongs 1 year ago
this would never work in los angeles, there'd be at least one accident every day
eunuchz 1 year ago
You also need to consider the problems that can arise with traffic accidents. How much more difficult would it be to put responsibility on a driver?
I'd still prefer to avoid traffic delays and increase my annual dings to my car though.
sacreebluee 1 year ago
Try this in New York.
zavatone 1 year ago
@JAVIERLIVAS and @startreking2007. I think you're missing the point. This proves we don't need ANY lights, whether green, yellow or red. It requires a paradigm shift; that people can cooperate in a mutually beneficial way without tyrannical green/yellow/red traffic lights.
chrisbecks 1 year ago 2
HOLY SHIT
kirby4d 1 year ago
this is the coolest thing i have ever seen
MultiFrunze 1 year ago
I'm going to show this to my traffic engineering teacher!
JakeNonphixion 1 year ago 35
@JakeNonphixion
Let me know what s/he says!
mjcassini 1 year ago 6
@JakeNonphixion It'd be like showing indisputable proof that there is no god to a priest.
"my life is a lie" :'(
leitermann 1 year ago
@JakeNonphixion Do traffic engineers use fluid dynamics principles? Curious thought I've considered for a while.
Also, props on Nonphixion username.
spikesmth 1 year ago
That is much better. Green and yellow do not require REDEFINING RED. That should work. Thanks for such a clear idea.
JAVIERLIVAS 1 year ago
@JAVIERLIVAS
You've completely missed the point of the video. The drivers yield by assumption of the principle "first come, first serve". There need not be a light that tells the driver to yield, because the driver already has it in his mind. The yield light would be completely irrelevant and most likely cause more harm than good.
CircleBastiat 1 year ago
Fantastic!
danaross 1 year ago 6
@danaross
Thanks!
mjcassini 1 year ago
The ideal situation is PERHAPS to have the lights where a RED means YIELD, not STOP. This is a new standard and would become very dangerous if people were not properly instructed about the new meaning of RED.
JAVIERLIVAS 1 year ago
@JAVIERLIVAS or simpler yet lights only have yellow and green?
startreking2007 1 year ago
portishead rules :)
peterrehak1 1 year ago
@SilverBars42 I'm not sure it has to be received that way. If these changes decrease the amount of time spent idling at lights, it would theoretically decrease pollution, so I imagine it would be embraced.
sparkey1 1 year ago
This is a clear demonstration that traffic lights are bad for society, the economy, local government finances and the environment. We have a situation where traffic lights result in unnecessary delays, high acceleration and speeds and sharp breaking on busy junctions. We also have traffic lights installed on junctions where there is very little traffic, leaving motorists, cyclists and pedestrians stranded, whilst well intentioned traffic engineers perceive that they have done the right thing.
ianenvironmental 1 year ago 26
@ianenvironmental Good points. I wonder how many accidents are caused by folks trying to beat a light.
yojimbo81 1 year ago 2
@ianenvironmental
WE also have a worldwide private banking system that has stolen 10s of trillions of dollars from the citizens living under it.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG Not all banks are bad... but big landowners... Look up Henry George and Land Value Tax. We work, our employer pay employment (income) tax to the state who invest in schools, etc. and as a result make places more desirable... and rents rise. So the harder we work, the more tax we pay and the more our landlord can charge us in rent whilst sat at home being unproductive.
ianenvironmental 1 year ago
@ianenvironmental
I was mostly discussing the federal reserve and other centralized banks around the world.
Also, your idea of money is completely limited. You do not have to work hard to make a lot of money. All you need to make a lot of money is a plan. I bet there person who gave you the idea you have to work really hard to have a lot of money doesn't have a lot of money. Also, working for money is the absolute worst way to make money.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG Be careful with your assumptions! I am a Georgist.
ianenvironmental 1 year ago
@ianenvironmental
I am careful with my assumptions, and I still conclude that you really don't understand money at all.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG So what is your qualification? Clearly you are an expert in "rudeness".
ianenvironmental 1 year ago
@ianenvironmental
I have established an impressive self worth and have attained financial independence.
I have done so legally, and have never had a job.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@ianenvironmental
Lets not forget that Majority of Americans are absolutely retarded when it comes to driving. This would need a god damn generation of preparing for a change like this. This requires way too much situational awareness for American Drivers.
BloodyRussian 1 year ago