Euan wrote:blybo wrote:Euan wrote:Chief Wiggum wrote:human909 wrote:I'm tired of the fallacious attitude around here that somebody who ignores a red light is risking getting hit. Surely you guys can cross roads in the absence of traffic lights?
How is that assumption fallacious? In fact, if you ignore red lights you run a somewhat increased risk of getting hit.
You have evidence for that?
You serious? Lights are most often installed in the types of intersections that history has decreed "traffic" has found it too difficult to deal with without traffic lights. Disobeying them with sufficient care is only reasonably safe because the VAST majority do obey, otherwise we'd have chaos. Just view the mayhem etc at a busy intersection when the lights are out and no police on point duty.
Yes I'm serious. Stated as a bald fact, it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence. To do otherwise is to practice dogma.
Naked streets is nothing new. While I'm not suggesting that no traffic lights is appropriate, there are examples of towns that have done away with lights and improved traffic flow as a result http://thecityfix.com/blog/naked-street ... nd-safety/
I understand that info graphics are of questionable merit, that said he's one I stumbled across which puts a bit of perspective on the issue http://smellslikeglue.com/2012/12/28/in ... ed-lights/
I think an important feature in your link is that Portishead is a town of 22,000 people, and the M5 takes traffic past it, not through it.
It is great that it works without traffic lights. I wouldn't be surprised if comparable size towns in Australia, in the absence of a major highway through them, would also operate with no traffic lights.
I don't believe it automatically scales to a city.