Amber before green - join the movement !

peasant

This is a personal bugbear of mine and has been annoying me every single day for the ten years I'm driving here ...no amber light before green ...all traffic lights go straight from red to green.

This causes the following:

People taking ages to wake up, putting their car into gear, releasing handbrake etc and by the time they finally drive off there's room for another car or two before the light changes again.

I believe that because of this congestion in our towns and cities is increased significantly, resulting in frustration, overall slower flow of traffic, lost time and on top of it all, tons of unnecessary CO2 produced by more cars idling.

(For those who have never been off this Island, in other countries the traffic light phases work as follows:

Green - Amber - Red - Red & Amber - Green)

My question is ...how many boardies will join me in the campaign for amber before green?

Let's get a popular movement going to have it introduced. With rising fuel prices and all that CO2 concern chances have never been better to actually achieve something here

listermint

It is a better system me thinks. They should go amber > green.
But i resent your "normal countries" remark

peasant

listermint wrote: »

But i resent your "normal countries" remark

fixed to "other countries"

listermint

Agreed!! Now lets roll this cookie :cool:

Cmar-Ireland

+1

Where do I sign

L1011

Off this island? Its used in Northern Ireland. To good affect.

I'm all for it.

Gran Hermano

I 100% support this as I've seen the benefits in the countries that have it in place.

My only concern is I feel we have a higher percentage of 'ambler gamblers'
in Ireland, might be wise introducing a clampdown on those who think an
amber light means pedal to the floor as opposed to stop before changing
traffic lights.

peasant

Cmar-Ireland wrote: »

+1

Where do I sign

I' sure, if there is a real sign that people actually want this, we will be able to come up with some form of petition or contact form that we then can send off to the relevant decision makers.

chris85

have said this before as well and I am all for it. Works well.

chickenhawk

Yep it's a good idea.

But it will never work in Ireland. People will go on amber or the people who don't go on amber will be blasted by some goon driving behind for not going.

Keith186

It's a great system, I've seen it in a couple of places and it seems to work well.
Unfortunately I think you'll be banging your head off a brick wall as the RSA/Gov just released a new Rules of the Road book in the last year so I don't think they'll want to amend any rules. I'm not sure but maybe there may have been some changes or will be, i.e. legal alcohol/blood level. Is this in the ROTR?

You might have a chance then.

eringobragh

I prefer the Simpsons Mensa solution!!!

In an interview with Kent Brockman:

Professor Frink:
"We studied traffic patterns and found that drivers
move the fastest through yellow lights, so now we
just have the red and yellow lights, mm-haiai."

colm_mcm

a LED counter like they have at pedestrian crossings would be a good idea.

maybe make it go blank after 9 or 8.

crosstownk

Tis a good system.

It would also cut down on "amber gambling" - after a fair few shunts

peasant

thread now with added poll

L1011

chickenhawk wrote: »

Yep it's a good idea.

But it will never work in Ireland. People will go on amber or the people who don't go on amber will be blasted by some goon driving behind for not going.

Drivers in the North are virtually the same as drivers in the Republic and don't do this - although the lead cars are usually creeping a little bit when it goes orange.

From experience of when learning to drive it also reduces the chance of the front car stalling...

mthd

To the 3 people who've voted no so far, why?

Cionád

mthd wrote: »

To the 3 people who've voted no so far, why?

They thought it was a re-hash of the Lisbon treaty

I think it's a good idea alright. How much would it cost to re-program all the traffic lights though? - should have brought it up last year when the Government was rich.

peasant

Cionád wrote: »

How much would it cost to re-program all the traffic lights though? - should have brought it up last year when the Government was rich.

I'm pretty sure that a software patch/upgrade could be had for very little money

Seth Brundle

IIRC the government (can't remember which dept or agency) ruled it out a few years back but I don't recall why.
Its a good idea alright.

Cionád

peasant wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that a software patch/upgrade could be had for very little money

Maybe so, but the cost of these kind of things nearly always explodes when the government is paying the bill.

Steve

I'm with you brother Peasant.

One question though that always comes to mind - and I never think to look when abroad:

When your light is at the G+A stage, is the other light already R?

Or is there some overlap?

IIRC, here, there is about 1 sec between the other side going red and your side going green.

unkel

MYOB wrote: »

the lead cars are usually creeping a little bit when it goes orange.

From experience of when learning to drive it also reduces the chance of the front car stalling...

That's the biggest advantage. And the shorter the green on a particular set of traffic lights, the better this system works

Needless to say, the "amber + red before green" system has my 100% support

Lord Nikon

Gran Hermano wrote: »

those who think an
amber light means pedal to the floor as opposed to stop before changing
traffic lights.

Oh you'll learn

unkel

SteveC wrote: »

here, there is about 1 sec between the other side going red and your side going green.

It seems shorter here than in almost any other country I've driven.

massivemagumbos

a countdown clock? are u kidding? it'll be like an F1 Murray Walker GO GO GO every mile! haha.

I'd be up for amber before green, but, it would cut down on the green time. If you think about it, currently our green lights go almost immediately after the red light goes on a + junction. If you brought in amber before green, you'd see the red light on the perpendicular road, then ur lights would go orange (proceed with caution) before going green. At the moment, u get green straight away, which means (joke before anybody hangs me) FLOOR IT!

staker

Waste of money. We gotta tighten those belts!! Those things cost a friggin bomb ffs. Why not turn the opposite lights a tad, and just floor it on their red??:D

Steve

unkel wrote: »

It seems shorter here than in almost any other country I've driven.

You're right, the more I think about it, it seems like about 0.5sec here.

I'm trying to visualise watching the other set turning red and the set in front going green. Definitely not enough time to say 'one thousand one'

Anyway, my original question, does anyone know what the overlap is in the UK between the other 'red' and the 'green' in front?

cyclopath2001

No, there are plenty of existing rules (speed limits, box junctions, stopping at amber lights, parking restrictions, lane discipline, driving the correct way on roundabouts), which if properly observed and enforced would lead to more efficient traffic movement.

L1011

massivemagumbos wrote: »

a countdown clock? are u kidding? it'll be like an F1 Murray Walker GO GO GO every mile! haha.

I'd be up for amber before green, but, it would cut down on the green time. If you think about it, currently our green lights go almost immediately after the red light goes on a + junction. If you brought in amber before green, you'd see the red light on the perpendicular road, then ur lights would go orange (proceed with caution) before going green. At the moment, u get green straight away, which means (joke before anybody hangs me) FLOOR IT!

The lights do not "go orange" - the red light is *still lit* and the amber light lights as an advisory. It is still an offense to proceed until the green light is lit. It doesn't decrease green time at all.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

No, there are plenty of existing rules (speed limits, box junctions, stopping at amber lights, parking restrictions, lane discipline, driving the correct way on roundabouts), which if properly observed and enforced would lead to more efficient traffic movement.

And this is a justification against bringing in something which wouldn't require any extra enforcement than there is already how?

peasant

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

No, there are plenty of existing rules (speed limits, .....), which if properly observed and enforced would lead to more efficient traffic movement.

At traffic lights ?

Speed limits at raffic lights ... sorry Cyclopath, but this time you've lost the plot completely ...time to pack in the old soap box my friend.

Run_to_da_hills

The NRA probably know the benefits of Amber before green but like turning Left on a red they are afraid to implement it for fear of a flood of idiot drivers that will look at this as a license to put the boot down once amber appears. Their attitude would probably "leave well enough alone". It could also be a patriotic thing, i.e why should we follow in the footsteps of the UK.

Lord Nikon

There are hardly any traffic lights in the sticks, move there and save yourself that precious 2 seconds it takes the noob infront of you to release handbrake, engage gear and move off.

Meh.

Holsten

I'd support it..

But would it really make that much of a difference? Really?

cyclopath2001

peasant wrote: »

At traffic lights ?

Speed limits at raffic lights ... sorry Cyclopath, but this time you've lost the plot completely ...time to pack in the old soap box my friend.

The 'plot' is about improving traffic flow. Pay attention.

Speeding adds to congestion by denying merging opportunities and also by giving rise to more situations of people blocking junctions because they were going too fast to stop in a non-blocking situation.

Changing the signal pattern is a waste of time compared to the other measures I mentioned.

Let's get the existing rules working first before making new ones.

L1011

What does "merging opportunities" have to do with traffic lights?

Nothing, but of course you can't let a thread go by without preaching about speeding...

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

What does "merging opportunities" have to do with traffic lights?

Nothing, but of course you can't let a thread go by without preaching about speeding...

My point was that tinkering with traffic lights won't improve congestion problems. I gave examples of how this problem could be solved. I know that people here don't want to discuss speeding, sorry for mentioning such an embarrassing matter.

Let's focus on the problem to be solved (congestion) rather than quick-fix gimmicks like 'orange before green'.

G-Money

I'm from the North myself I kind of found it a little surprising at the start that the lights in the south go from red straight to green, instead of red, amber, green.

However now that I'm used to it, it doesn't really make much of a difference to me personally. But I can see how it could surprise someone who is used to it the red - amber - green system.

I guess what I like is that it gives you a bit of warning that the light is about to turn green and give you a few seconds to put the car in gear etc.

peasant

Holsten wrote: »

I'd support it..

But would it really make that much of a difference? Really?

I believe it would. Not only does amber before green signal the impending change to green to the first car in the queue, but to all the subsequent ones as well.

So everybody can be ready to drive off when it's green instead of waking from their slumber, fiddling with gears and handbrakes and wasting everybodies time.

How many vehicles are waiting in all of Ireland in front of traffic ligths during rush hour on any given day? 300,000; 500,000; a million? All sitting there, with engines idling, producing tons of CO2. How often is that process repeated until they get to their destination?

If because of this measure only one extra car got through every queue at every traffic light, it would make a huge difference. Maybe not a very noticable one for the individual driver, but looking at the big picture, traffic flow would speed up by a significant percentage.

The cost on the other hand would be minimal. Other than a software tweak and an ad campaign to make drivers aware of the changes ...nothing.

mikemac

I voted no but hear me out.

I drive a motorbike or moped so you’ll often see me at the top of the queue. :pac:
And I’ll be 30 metres up the road before the car behind me has even started to move as I’m watching the opposite lights if possible so I know when my lights are going to change. All about awareness folks!

Some car drivers do this but most don’t and almost all are slow getting away from lights. Maybe it’s harder for them to see and maybe they don’t care but I don’t think amber lights will make a difference.

Secondly, we have flashing amber lights at some pedestrians crossings. This means if it’s safe to do so but I’ve often been walking across one and when the lights flash amber car start beeping me as if I’m in the wrong and start pointing at me to hurry up and get out of the way
Is this going to happen at all junctions?

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

My point was that tinkering with traffic lights won't improve congestion problems. I gave examples of how this problem could be solved. I know that people here don't want to discuss speeding, sorry for mentioning such an embarrassing matter.

Let's focus on the problem to be solved (congestion) rather than quick-fix gimmicks like 'orange before green'.

The fact is its not a 'quick fix gimmick', nor is it 'tinkering'. Its proven to work in many other countries as it is. It will help far more to solve congestion than messing with city centre speed limits or any of your other suggestions - most of which are miles off the mark.

However, it won't work here if cyclists continue to preempt lights like the majority of those in the city centre do...

Terrontress

Like many other things to do with road instruction, Ireland has used the American model. Yellow diamond road signs anyone?

As someone from Northern Ireland, it would appear that the traffic lights here are much more complicated than those in the UK. So many filter lights, do not turn left etc. on even the simplest junctions. Would that interfere with having the red-amber combination?

AntiVirus

Nope, it would make things worse for all the bad drivers out there. Now if you had an option for the Marshalite traffice light system I would have voted yes! Or better still have a big COUNTER for all amber light fans lol.

maidhc

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The 'plot' is about improving traffic flow. Pay attention.

Speeding adds to congestion by denying merging opportunities and also by giving rise to more situations of people blocking junctions because they were going too fast to stop in a non-blocking situation.

Changing the signal pattern is a waste of time compared to the other measures I mentioned.

Let's get the existing rules working first before making new ones.

With all due respect, you make no sense.

This is not a rule. It gives the first few cars in a queue the heads up to drop the handbrake, and get ready to move.

It is not a new rule, just something which will cost nothing and will improve efficiency.

(Actually I notice a lot of temporary traffic lights do it already since they are set up for the UK/NI/Everywhere else in the world)

Steve

AntiVirus wrote: »

Nope, it would make things worse for all the bad drivers out there. Now if you had an option for the Marshalite traffice light system I would have voted yes! Or better still have a big COUNTER for all amber light fans lol.

an alternative, rotary traffic signal designed by Charles Marshall in 1936 & used from the 1940s through 1970s in Australia. 2 rotors pointing at colored sections denote whether traffic in either direction should proceed, prepare, or stop. based on a traditional clock face, it has the advantage of clearly showing signal phase timing.


No thanks!

Einstein

good idea, i say yes. But the government dont like change.
won't happen.

miju

+1 , one of these days one of these dawdliers at the traffic lights is going to have their steering wheel wrapped around their head by me.

Don't waste a life mr government man, do as the OP says

Cionád

micmclo wrote: »

I drive a motorbike or moped so you’ll often see me at the top of the queue. :pac:
And I’ll be 30 metres up the road before the car behind me has even started to move as I’m watching the opposite lights if possible so I know when my lights are going to change. All about awareness folks!

Some car drivers do this but most don’t and almost all are slow getting away from lights. Maybe it’s harder for them to see and maybe they don’t care but I don’t think amber lights will make a difference.

I try to do this and it works in some places where the angle of the lights is readable (like the N3/M50 roundabout) but most of the time the angle is not there to see the opposite lights, It's easier for motorcyclists because they stop in the area in front of the white line most of the time, whereas I'll stop my car before the white line.

Also, as peasant said, the amber light would also signal the subsequent vehicles which would have no chance of checking the opposite lights.

How about a new solution, everyone stop with a car distance between yourself and the car infront, then when the light goes amber, engage gear, when goes green Go!, the extra gap between the cars means all cars can proceed at the same time! [would work better if everyone accelerated at the same rate]

balon

makes good sense = probably why it won't happen here