From: Matt B on
On 31/07/2010 16:39, Mortimer wrote:
> "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message
> news:8bisskFum2U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> On 31/07/2010 16:09, Phil W Lee wrote:
>> The point is though that with no lights, and peds, cyclists, cars,
>> etc. randomly interacting it /never/ becomes predictable or routine.
>> Alertness is required each and every time - you never know who or what
>> is going to cross your path - and you /never/ have any priority over
>> them.
>
> Therefore it becomes a free-for all: it increases the risk of collision
> which means that either the number of collisions increases or else
> everyone has to slow right down to reduce the chance of collision to
> acceptible level.

So which do you think it is most likely to be?

> It also relies on much greater signalling so everyone
> knows who is going to go next, to avoid everyone thinking "so *can* I go
> or can't I?".

That doesn't sound like a bad thing.

> What happens if two road users each are convinced that it
> is now safe for them to go? Either they collide or else they each
> realise that it is not safe and they back off, and then have to decide
> all over again who will go first.

Yes, just like in "real" (unregulated) life.

> When I'm driving I want to know that I can either go through a junction
> at normal speed if the lights are in my favour or else I will have to
> stop if they are not.

So with _no_ lights it'll always be the latter, never the unsafe and
unreliable former.

> Having to slow down at *every* junction, rather
> than only those where the lights are against me, is a very retrograde
> step.

Not at all. Did you watch the video?

> I'm not saying that if the lights are in your favour you should
> stop looking for the nutter who has gone through a red light into you
> path, but this should be the unlikely exception rather than being a
> near-certainty.

Treat drivers like idiots (like by removing their freedom to go when it'
safe) and they act like idiots. Allow them to make decisions and
choices and they'll behave responsibly. :-)

--
Matt B
From: Matt B on
On 31/07/2010 16:43, Mortimer wrote:
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qLadnYoBYMr13MnRnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>
>> "Phil W Lee" <phil(a)lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
>> news:2te8561q3b1aj6cornsc5b8bah1pft8iic(a)4ax.com...
>>
>>> I'm fairly sure that what happens when lights fail is not a good
>>> indication of what happens when they are removed.
>>> It is dealing with the unfamiliar that makes drivers cautious, so it
>>> doesn't last.
>>
>> It has in those towns which have implemented it, so we're told anyway.
>
> If when you get rid of lights you replace them with either a roundabout
> or a major road / minor road junction (ie crossroads sign in one
> direction, give way / stop signs in the other direction) that's fine. If
> you dispense with the rules of priority, that's a horrendous situation
> because it leads to doubt, indecision and barging.

Yes, and thus caution, leading to slower and safer roads. Where do most
crashes occur now?

--
Matt B
From: Mr Pounder on

"Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:8bi2oiF5pmU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> On 31/07/2010 08:39, Derek C wrote:
>> From the court reports in my local newspaper:
>>
>> [snipped details of some motoring offences]
>>
>> If only penalties like these were applied to cyclists, we would soon
>> see a drop in deliberate RLJing, no lights at night and the many
>> other offences that cyclists seem to get away with scot free!
>
> Should the penalty be proportional to the size of the risk posed at the
> tine?

No, a red light is a red light regardless of the tine.
>
> Do you believe that most sets of traffic lights give more benefit than
> dis-benefit for most of the time?

Yes.


Would our access roads and streets be
> safer, less congested and polluted and more enjoyable places without them?

No.

>
> --
> Matt B
>


From: Tony Raven on
Mortimer wrote:
>
> Therefore it becomes a free-for all: it increases the risk of collision
> which means that either the number of collisions increases or else
> everyone has to slow right down to reduce the chance of collision to
> acceptible level. It also relies on much greater signalling so everyone
> knows who is going to go next, to avoid everyone thinking "so *can* I go
> or can't I?". What happens if two road users each are convinced that it
> is now safe for them to go? Either they collide or else they each
> realise that it is not safe and they back off, and then have to decide
> all over again who will go first.
>

If you can't handle it then perhaps you shouldn't have a driving
license. American drivers manage it all the time so I don't see why you
think a British driver can't without crashing.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
From: Nick Finnigan on
Matt B wrote:
> On 31/07/2010 16:39, Mortimer wrote:
>
>> When I'm driving I want to know that I can either go through a junction
>> at normal speed if the lights are in my favour or else I will have to
>> stop if they are not.
>
> So with _no_ lights it'll always be the latter, never the unsafe and
> unreliable former.

Traffic rarely needs to stop, even at a junction with a STOP sign.