Getting rid of traffic lights

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Kind of familiar with the arguments but this opinion piece by Martin Cassini is succinct

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18072259 (link to origional BBC site)

We rely on traffic lights to tell us when to go. And when to stop. We should replace that with common sense, argues traffic campaigner Martin Cassini.
It was a day in Cambridge in 2000 at a road junction where normally I would wait for three signal changes to get through.
This time it was deserted and as I breezed through without incident or delay I saw that the traffic lights were out of action.
From then on I started thinking: "Are we better off left to our own devices and is this huge system of traffic control blocking our progress and making us 'see red' in more ways than one?"
First, the statistics. The latest annual figures show there were 24,500 deaths or serious injuries on the roads in a year in the UK.
The numbers have been declining steadily but it seems to me that a traffic control system that presides over those sorts of figures is still getting something profoundly wrong.
One estimate puts the annual cost of accidents at between £15bn and £32bn and in my view most accidents are not accidents.
They are events contrived by the rules and design of the road.
As a driver, when you see a green light, are you watching the road? You're probably watching the light.
Driving recently, I was about 20 yards away when lights changed to amber and I thought, shall I put my foot down and try to beat the amber.
I knew it would be a long wait at this set of lights.
Luckily I did not. As I stopped, between the traffic light poles a pedestrian appeared. If I had put my foot down it would have been a disaster.
People think traffic lights are a guarantee of safety but the latest audit from Westminster City Council, for example, has shown that 44% of personal injury accidents occurred at traffic lights.
I started filming junctions wherever I found the lights were out of action and filmed after the engineers had got the lights working again.
I started a campaign, now called Equality Streets and initially known as Fit Roads, standing for Filter in Turn. The idea behind it was that we can make roads fit for people by letting human nature take its competent and co-operative course.
Instinctively, we want to be kind to each other, especially out on the road. When you first meet a stranger, unless you're a mugger, you want to be nice to that stranger.
We all have relationships with strangers in their thousands or millions on the road but road user relationships are corroded and corrupted by the system of control which makes us almost have a greater respect for a traffic light than for a human life.
The fatal flaw at the heart of the system is priority. Traffic lights are bad enough - they make us stop when we could go, they take our eyes off the road, flouting the most fundamental safety principle but they are only the symptom of a dysfunctional system.
The unseen spanner in the works is the idea of main road priority. It was introduced in about 1929 when the authorities were trying to work out how to regulate the new form of locomotion - the motor car.
Main road priority licenses main road traffic to plough on regardless of who was there first, including side road traffic and people on foot waiting to cross.
If you're driving along a main road do you even notice that mother with a pram on a traffic island trying to cross the road?
You might notice her but you can't really stop and let her go if there's a 10-tonne truck on your tail, especially if there's a green light ahead.
The intolerable conflicts that arise, arise purely and simply from this rule of priority.
So what did they do to solve the problem of priority to enable us to cross the road in relative safety? They put up traffic lights, so they make us "stop to avoid the inconvenience of slowing down", to quote traffic writer Kenneth Todd.
If the lights weren't there, naturally we would approach slowly and carefully and see what other people were doing and filter through, but the traffic lights make us speed up to beat them.
But what about the maniacs? If we had no traffic control, what would happen?
You can't even legislate for maniacs, so why hobble the vast majority with "one size fits all" rules devised to catch the hypothetical deviant?
My solution is to remove the fatal flaw at the heart of the system - the original sin of priority, because once you've removed priority you've removed the need for traffic lights and the need for speed because we're in no rush any more.
We're not rushing to beat that light, we're not stressed out waiting in a queue that's caused purely and simply by that red light.
Traffic volume can be a drama but volume plus control equals crisis. If you're leaving say, a pop concert in a car, the volume of traffic we can live with. What gets our goat is if we're sitting at a red light for no reason other than that it's red.
In Portishead near Bristol where I showed my video, The Case for a Traffic Lights Trial to the council, a trial began on 14 September 2000.
The lights were switched off at a junction where there had been excessive queues and within minutes of the lights being bagged over the queues disappeared.
That trial has gone permanent and the monitoring has shown that journey times fell by over half with no loss of safety.
Various organisations have put the cost of lost productivity to the UK economy as a result of congestion at £20bn so in my opinion traffic system reform is a rich source of painless spending cuts.
 

BSRU

A Human Being
Location
Swindon
We should replace that with common sense

I see a major flaw in his argument, he is assuming everyone has common sense, it is blatantly obvious many road users lack common sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gaz

doug

Veteran
I used to work in Watford and the traffic lights on the ring road occasionally broke down.
In light to moderate traffic, people treated it sensibly by slowing down and taking turns, so it generally worked better than when the lights were working (though it was a real pain as a pedestrian trying to cross 4 lanes of constant traffic flow).

However, come rush hour it was complete chaos, total gridlock, angry drivers and the occasional accident as some would try to push in and others refused to give way. However it did make crossing the road easy as all the cars were stationary.

I think would be a good idea to review many traffic lights, not all are needed all of the time, but there are some that are essential.
 

StuartG

slower but no further
Location
SE London
Oh dear - yet another simplistic 'common sense' approach to managing (or deciding not to manage) road traffic. We have too many lights but would having none be any better?

I would be happy if he went for the low hanging fruit of the worst offenders and then working down to where lights are advantageous. And not all traffic lights are about prioritising one traffic path over another. They can be advantageous in managing the density of traffic and consequent ripple effects which decrease road capacity and cause crashes. That might not make sense to a driver when being held by a light when there is no other traffic joining. Just as reducing the speed limit from 70 mph to 50mph on congested roads will unintuitively speed things up!

So while this guy is doing some good by establishing that some lights are counterproductive - it is a mistake if we don't understand why and programme it out of existing traffic light planning policies. I fear he is getting metaphysical rather than understanding the issue.
 

davefb

Guru
I find it stunning that "campaigner" would admit that when seeing an amber he wanted to beat the lights.. sorry, 'beat the lights'?
And who was this magic pedestrian that 'appeared' from behind a pole, paul daniels?
Some lights failed yesturday morning on the way into work, yes, probably no longer delay, but good grief that was horrific...

I do "love" stats like "44% of injuries were at lights", and? 100% of road traffic injuries were on roads, so maybe we should put fields in the place?
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
Sort of on topic, one of the villages near me (Poynton) has introduced the shared space type scheme through the centre. It is on the busy Stockport/Macclesfield road, so sees alot of traffic. The traffic lights have been replaced by two small roundabouts. The effect I've seen is that traffic flows better, and everyone is pretty cautious - probably because it's so new, but it does seem to be working.
 
D

Deleted member 1258

Guest
We have some shared space junctions in the centre of Coventry, their introduction has been a bit controversial, there's been a couple of accidents and a death, I haven't used them much so can't comment to much on them, my impression is that they are OK for pedestrians unless they are old slow disabled or visually impaired. Unilaterally removing all traffic lights would probably be a bad idea, they make using some of the bigger more complicated junctions and roundabouts easier on a bike, but a review leading to the removal of some and the redesign of others might be a good idea.
 

Hawk

Veteran
The reason everyone is so cautious in the above cases is that they are unusual situations that drivers haven't experienced much before, they are not used to them and in any unfamiliar situation it is only natural to take extra care. As soon as we replace lots of lights with uncontrolled junctions, drivers will become familiar with them and in the long term the accident rate would be higher and as a result, congestion more commonplace as people haul their cars out these junctions
 

BSRU

A Human Being
Location
Swindon
Seven months ago they removed the lights from a large roundabout in Swindon, it did reduce congestion but it made it far more dangerous for cyclists and there have been lots of accidents.
In the previous years I have been using that roundabout I never saw or came across an accident on the roundabout but currently it appears to be one accident every two or three weeks.
 

GrasB

Veteran
Location
Nr Cambridge
In my experience there are a lot of lights which really don't need to be there. There are lights which definitely do need to be there. The thing is in Cambridge(shire) the seems to be a lot more of the former than the latter (I can think of 7 lights which were put in under the justification of reducing congestion but only succeeded in causing more congestion). On the occasions when large swathes of lights have been non-functional congestion even at peek times has been reduced & there hasn't been any accidents. That said there are junctions which definitely do need traffic lights either to allow people to get out of side roads safely or enforce some order on things.

Also there are a lot of lights that are badly timed & so waste a lot of traffic flow potential needlessly. For instance there's a set of lights in our village at a T-junction, the lights are needed but the timings are stupid. The timing is about 1:2 side road:main road & a cycle lasts 5 min. This means that there's almost a queue of traffic at the lights on the main road waiting for nothing. There's also similar lights elsewhere but these work much more effectively. They are setup to give a green to through traffic almost all the time but as soon as traffic appears at the side they quickly change letting a few cars through. More traffic going through that junction but there's no queue of traffic for the majority of the time.
 
Top Bottom