Talk:Traffic light/Archive 2

France
If the page is to be reorganized, can I suggest mention of the following, from France:

Traffic signals are never repeated at the other side of the intersection in France. Drivers in most parts of the world (Ireland, UK, USA, Australia - my experience only) who are first in the queue at a red light are used to being able to look across the intersection and seeing the light that applies to them displayed. This is not the case in France.

Why do they do this? It does make absolutely clear the point at which a driver must stop. It also removes any confusion that can occur at oddly shaped junctions where some drivers look at the wrong light.

It also removes the following problem: at some T-junctions in UK, I have seen drivers coming from the minor road onto the through-road and stopping because they see the red-light meant for drivers on the through-road. They are incorrect in doing this but would be correct if in France.

It is also useful in towns and cities where there are several junctions spaced close together.

It has disadvantages though: if turning left in France and you move into the junction waiting for a gap in the traffic to turn, you have no way of knowing when the green changes to amber and red.

The same is true in heavy traffic. If you edge past the lights into the junction going straight on you don't know when the lights change.

The following help this situation:

1. A second set of traffic lights is always displayed at a lower level for the driver at the front of the queue. This solves one problem but it does mean that the driver is looking to the right before moving off. I much prefer looking straight ahead to see any potential hazards.

2. For left-turning traffic, there is sometimes a light displayed to indicate when traffic coming in the opposite direction has a red-light and thus when it is safe to turn. This light is in the form of a red cross. When lit, opposing traffic has red light. When not lit, opposing traffic has green light. David in dublin 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Title of Article
The correct term is a Traffic Signal, not Traffic Light. This is because they provide a signal for drivers to obey rather than providing light for illumination (being able to see). The term written in UK law is Traffic Light Signal and they are also known as Automated Traffic Signals, the use of 'Traffic Light' is not technically correct and should be discouraged.

194.129.64.35 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Tom 17:36, 15 August 2007 (GMT)


 * I have placed #REDIRECT Traffic Light at the locations you mentioned. But based on the number of names for them around the world, IMHO, it is not cause for Moving the page.  Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit by Epicentre
I just reverted this edit by Epicentre as I cannot follow its rationale. Firstly, by the lingo used in my area (so perhaps it's different elsewhere), a malfunction results in flashing amber; but a failure results in a dark signal. Secondly, if all sides are expected to give way, what would be the point of adding a stop sign? How would the approaches without the stop sign -- whom are not supposed to stop -- know that the other approaches have the stop sign? Is a sign provided which indicates that they may travel through without stop on flashing amber? Are varying colors used in each direction instead of signs, as in N.America where flashing amber indicates a vehicles may proceed with caution and flashing red indicates a vehicle must stop? And what happens if the signal is dark: do the duties of motorists change as compared with a flashing signal? If you can provide references, that may help in clearing up my confusion. Lastly: it is not advisable to mark information additions as minor edits. Cheers! -- Bossi  ( talk • gallery • contrib ) 11:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what traffic rules are like in Israel but the purpose of a stop sign would seem obvious to me. I'm aware the US uses stop signs in a slightly funny way (4 way intersections each with a stop sign) but AFAIK from the stop sign article, this is rare in most of the rest of the world. At least in the commonwealth and apparently in a lot of the rest of Europe, stop signs are used sparingly. Generally, if you have a stop sign you give way to all traffic except traffic without a stop sign. So for example, if the traffic lighted intersection had a stop sign and the traffic lights were broken then I would presume anyone with the stop sign would give way to everyone else. For an example of how stop signs often work see . AFAIK although some of the give way rules in New Zealand are somewhat unusual (specifically in the UK, Australia people turning left usually have the right of way), the actual stop sign, give way sign etc rules are fairly common in much of the commonwealth and potentially much of Europe as well. Nil Einne 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lloydminster
Okay, so in Lloydminster I can be waiting at a red signal according to Alberta's traffic laws going one way and Saskatchewan's going the other way. Why is this relevant? If Alberta permitted right-on-red and Saskatchewan didn't, for example, I can see why it might make a difference. Merely talking about an issue of the jurisdiction in which any cases arising from any crashes might be heard, in one set of junctions in one town, seems a little irrelevant to a general article on traffic lights. Marnanel 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lloydminster is also included in talk above in section 17... I really don't think this city's traffic signals are worth mentioning in the article.  The article is already very long and I don't think examples of traffic signals is required.  While each province may have their own legislation for this, so do the municipalities and whether they are on the Alberta or Sask. side, they're still in the same municipality.  I just don't see why it's notable for an encyclopedic article. --nobuyuki219.108.24.231 07:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. This is not exactly very notable, or interesting, or relevant. --Coolcaesar 07:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Flashing green light
Under the section Turning signals and rules they mention: "In a fourth type, sometimes seen at intersections in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, there is no dedicated left-turn lamp per se. Instead, the normal green lamp flashes rapidly, indicating permission to go straight as well as make a left turn in front of opposing traffic, which is being held by a steady red lamp."

I would just like to note that it's not only in Ontario and Quebec. They also have "flashing green" in Halifax, Nova Scotia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.88.11 (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The usual U.S. centric bias.
If the first traffic lights were in the U.K. how are 'modern' traffic lights a U.S. invention? Firstly the design of traffic lights has been in a constant state of flux since their invention in the England. By adding the weasel word 'modern' the author is trying to assert that anything prior to the particular U.S. example quoted is not 'modern'

Truly 'modern' computer controlled lights with radio telemetry for emergency vehicles are what I would call 'modern' not the author's antiquated American example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I read it as basically saying that the first traffic lights looking something like the current ones tend to were installed in the U.S. They were predated by British lights, but the British ones were more like semaphores, and less like the current 3-lights-in-a-row design. The referencing in this section is weak all around, though, so we should probably find some reliable book on the subject and follow what it says. --Delirium (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a US centric thing going on here. And it is a mistake to think that the first traffic lights were invented in England. Why would anyone think that? Gingermint (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yacker Trackers
Should Yacker Trackers (traffic lights in classrooms that monitor noise) be mentioned in Section 11.1, "As a rating mechanism"? Nerdygeek101 (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits by LMB
The two edits by LMB on April 26, 2008 seem to have removed a great deal of text. Are they acceptable? Nerdygeek101 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Traffic Technology Query
A lot of new over-roadway technologies are being introduced and implemented. Should there perhaps be a sub-section within Technology called 'Sensors' to expound upon these technologies? Or is it perhaps as yet irrelevant since an overwhelming number of sensors at intersections as yet are in-roadway, with the exception of the emergency override sensors as discussed later in the article? Marc (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

France - flashing amber lights and failure
In France, traffic lights can show flashing amber to all directions. This means "give way to traffic entering from the right" - in other words, what you would do if the lights were not there. This may be activated in some failure conditions, or, at least until the late 1980s, at night. Of course, the same rule also applies if the lights are completely out.

Is it still common practice to effectively put the lights into "fail" at night in France? I haven't seen it for a few years but then have not spent much time on the road in France at night recently - many such instances have been in fairly large towns. EmleyMoor (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

When traffic lights are put to "fail" (all flashing ambers), they usually have a small warning sign on the same pole indicating priority at the junction when the lights are not operational. One approach will have yield, the other will have the sign indicating minor road ahead. Sometimes, the priority-to-the-right sign is used and this is the rule that should be obeyed if no sign is present.

It's very sensible, and handy if the lights do break down. Is it a waste of signs though?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd9965 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Red light camera civil infraction
The article states, Houston, Texas has a unique system in which tickets for running the red light caught by the camera are a civil infraction rather than a criminal offense that appears on your driving record. I don't believe this can be described as unique anymore; in Washington state, red light camera violations result in a fine but do not appear on your driving record. 64.81.163.112 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Heading in middle?
Why have headings been put in the middle?

Tabletop (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your computer. I dont see it CindyAbout /T/P/C/ 01:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

== I'm seeing ALOT of images... == Template Added.

NPOV?
"Nevertheless, it is increasingly and disturbingly common in at least the U.S. to see drivers who do not yield in the absence of a dedicated signal, cutting off traffic that has right-of-way and is starting to head across the intersection."

This is in the middle of a long paragraph about ¼ of the way down the page (in "Turning signals and rules"), but doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I will add a "citation needed" tag to it, but it probably should be deleted. 76.21.8.213 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

your right way to long
sorry I'm new here so I will not be able to give lots of comments but I also think it's way to long —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joopie99 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The blue lights above traffic lights
I came to this article hoping to see some explanation for the lights I'm seeing on top of traffic lights more and more often. Neither my family nor I understand their purpose. They were white when they first started appearing but are now more frequently blue. Does anyone know what their function is? If it's important, we live in central Florida. --Suttkus (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do they start flashing when you hear the siren from an emergency vehicle? --  Denelson83  02:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If so, they tell the emergency vehicle driver that the signal computer has activated the emergency preemption phase, and the emergency vehicle will soon get a green light.
 * If not, sometimes lights are used so a police officer can tell which approach has a red light. Without these, the officer has to be able to see the red light to write a ticket. This means the officer also has to run the red light to catch the offender, at some risk to the public.
 * --Triskele Jim (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They are the latter sort, apparently, though I've never seen one when an emergency vehicle came by. They should be added to the article, regardless. --Suttkus (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedestrian signal detection and indications
New detector types are being used that don't require the pedestrian to push a button. Ultrasound, treadles, bollards with light beams, etc., are being used.

Also, accessible pedestrian signal systems use such things as locator tones so blind and low-vision pedestrians can find the push buttons, vibrating and light-up buttons so the pedestrian gets feedback when pushing the button, voice messages to supplement pedestrain head indications, and so forth.

This might be worth splitting off to a sub-article.--Triskele Jim (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

LED Traffic Lights Suggestion
Due to the increased use of LED traffic lights throughout the world there should be images demonstrating the capability of this technology under the "Technology" section of this article. Could these images be uploaded to Wikipedia and embedded into this page under the appropriate section. This would greatly enhance the "Technology" part of this article and would explain the technology as it is being progressively rolled out and replacing indecent bulbs around the world. Therefore, please upload images of LED Traffic Lights. Thankyou.


 * Indecent bulbs? Are they the red ones I see in upstairs windows around here? SimonTrew (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest changes by 206.209.221.90
I am a bit puzzled by the changes by User_talk:206.209.221.90 (that's Cat C I dunno how stable it is as an IP address). I'm imagining that the user feels the sections deleted are redundant/duplicated. But it would help if a change reason was given when so doing.

Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Running" a red light
in the UK, to run a red light means simply to pass through the signal without stopping, not necessarily to chase to avoid a red light.

Also, in the section on placement, driver habits may mean that when in unfamiliar places with other placements they may accidentally run a red light (or a STOP sign) simply because they are not looking to see it placed there.

Should we somehow incoroporate this? SimonTrew (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never thought that much about what running a red light means. I personally use it to mean not stopping.  Whether they sped up or slowed down or continued at the same speed.
 * The placement thing might be challenged for OR or something. I wouldn't, because I agree.  In the US, that isn't typically a problem; the signs warning of stop signs and lights are huge and plentiful, and most light overhang the road, so it's hard to miss them.  In an unfamiliar area, like a suburban development, it would be more of a problem than on a high-speed country road, but there are signs there, too.  So...placement, maybe should be rethought.  "Running" could be clarified it seems. -- M PD T / C 02:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever run a red light in the US (ours are usually side of road, in Texas they were usually overhead) but certainly gone through a lot of stop signs just cos they are comparatively rare here. That is covered in the Stop Sign and Yield articles-- Before I got accustommed to US traffic, the placement of stop signs (and also direction sigsn for Interstates etc) I missed quite a lot; if I missed a STOP sign my boss would just tell me to stop twice at the next one to make up for it. This is dealt with under the STOP sign and YIELD sign articles so it doesn't need to be blah'd about here, but a small sentence or para may be worthwhile.


 * The opposite problem arises here, where accustomed drivers are looking say right approaching a roundabout (we are left hand traffic of course) and if the guy in front doesn't go when the way is clear you get a rear-ender. It doesn't belong in great detail in this article but I thik maybe that placement can cause, somehow should be incorporated.


 * Also, in the UK, traffic lights are often situated so that you can see the lights for traffic to your left and right kinda "out of the corner of your eye", and so you know you are gonna get a green very soon (if you know the intersection well). Sometimes, these days, it seems more common to use a baffle to limit the direction in which lights can be see, but it was something my driving instructor taught me to do. People forget that "defensive driving" does not mean "going at 10mph everywhere" but "attempting to keep the car safely in motion at all times" and we really don't like stopping when there's no need to. :) SimonTrew (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh in the UK it is called "jumping the lights" too, but I think that is used when going too early from a stop (I imagine from "jump the gun"). SimonTrew (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Programmable Visibility signals issue, fact tag removal, etc.
I've made a step in adding a link to the 3M High Visibility Signals article under the "Mounting" section of the article, in hopes to aid further understanding of the application of a programmable visibility signal.

Furthermore, I've removed the [citation needed] tag in re: the remark about McCain being the only manufacturer of programmable visibility signals. According to the patent awarded to 3M when they developed the technology (see the 3M HVS article for more), to be considered a programmable visibility signal, the aiming, programming, and optical limiting of the signal head must be done by hand to ensure a correct signal display for the lane in which the indication is intended (the proof can be further supplanted by viewing these YouTube clips here,, which explains how the process is achieved).

It is true that Econolite does market what is called the Intelight/Optisoft "Electronic Steerable Beam" traffic signal (see here:), but the light output and the display capabilities of that signal head are vastly different from that of a 3M head, or a McCain Programmable Visibility head, and thus cannot be considered a "true" programmable visibility signal. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work. One thing I might suggest is a bit more explanation in the main lighting section about Fresnel lenses. Obviously it is covered in its main topic but its particular application to traffic lights might be useful there rather than specifically in the programmability section etc? SimonTrew (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Signal Warrants
A section should be added on how traffic engineers decide whether a given intersection needs to be signalized. I'm familar with US warrants, but it would be interesting to compare criteria from different countries. --Triskele Jim (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * UK - In a nutshell when a junction is reviewed the pro's and cons of the different design options (signalised or not) are reviewed and a decision made as to what is the best option. Normally everything is translated into financial terms and several different different motivational factors could be considered, including vehicle delay, safety, accessibility, bus priority etc.


 * A very oversimplified example.


 * Safety - An existing priority junction has a poor intervisibility envelope due to building lines, as a result suffers 3 more casulty collisions per year than the average for a similar junction. Assuming a holistic cost of £70,000 is incurred per casulty, removing the excess casulty issue by signalisation will save £210,000 per annum. If signalisation costs £100,000 then this will have a first year rate of return of 210%  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.174.177 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Belisha beacons ought to be mentioned.
Still quite common in the UK. Could also mention pelican and other types of zebra crossings that have traffic lights. 89.243.46.238 (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A Zebra crossing is considered a controlled crossing enviroment but is it really Signalised? I personally consider it to be a formal pedestrian arrangement, but not signalised and therefore outside the scope of this article. Pelican/Puffin/Toucan crossings are not types of zebra crossing, they are signalised crossing points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.174.177 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage: Traffic Signal vs Traffic Light

 * A Light is something that illuminates and allows one to see. A signal is something that tells you what to do. Surely it is commonsense that the important 'aspect' of the device is that it is giving a direction to motorists, not the fact that it is luminous. Hence the logical adoption of the engineering/technical community to term the device a traffic signal. UK law uses 'Traffic Light Signal' which is technically correct but a bit of a mouthful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.174.177 (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite the frequent use of "Traffic Light" by many of us in the US, many traffic engineers should acknowledge that "Traffic Signal" is the correct term to use for the devices presented under this topic. Shouldn't the word "light" refer to illuminating devices? I am not very familiar with the rules and principles of Wikipedia but if it is more important to be accurate with definition and terminology than capturing the popular usage of terms, I respectfully recommend this correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.47.34.2 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP is not only USA. They are only called "Traffic Lights" over the pond.
 * Also as they were invented in England, so it seems better to keep the original name.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the Highway Code section at calls them "traffic light signals" but it is clear, looking further dwown the page, that the "traffic light" is the physical device and the "signal" is its illuminated aspect. SimonTrew (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's beacuse the Highway Code bunches it up in a large section of "signals" or various flavours covering three pages in the book - doesn't really help. From experience, when I learned to drive, it was always called Traffic Lights, but that was in 1967...  If you look at Google searches, the number of hits for varieties of Traffic Lights vs. Traffic Signals are not too dissimilar.  At the end of the day, it probably doesn't make too much difference - presently Traffic Signal redirects to Traffic Light, if you change the name the reverse will happen.  Therefore people will always find the page - which is really what we want them to be able to do.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think either side of the pond as Dr. Jones says use "traffic lights" very frequently, however, the academic publications including the ones in UK refrain from using "Traffic Lights".  This is easy to verify.  Simply search for publications in this UK based research institution  as "traffic signal" and "traffic lights".  You will notice that the majority of publications used "traffic signal".  As far as I know this is a well-known research institution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.47.34.2 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Australia calls them Traffic lights as does New Zealand. Bidgee (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's one company, not a selection of institution - there's nothing that suggests to me that their truth should be taken as gospel. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but to verify your point you should find sources from several institutions to back you up. Talk Islander 23:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * TRL is an institution that holds a large collection of government sponsored scientific papers. So they don't represent a particular view or trend. I wanted to add few more resources that makes consistent reference to "traffic signals".

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/part4/part4b.htm http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/trafficsigns.pdf http://www.onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/script/result.asp?SearchType=simple&Db=All&doctype=All&Status=all&Max=15&DegnKeyword=traffic+signals&search=search

I trust that these are three major governments' publications. I want to emphasize, no doubt, many people do refer to "traffic signals" as "traffic lights". However, the accepted proper use among the scientific and engineering community is "traffic signal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.200.118 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's kinda unclear what the end games of this thread are, I'm assuming a possible move to Traffic signal? Personally, I prefer traffic signal, by analogy to railway signals. A lot of people in the US call the the thing one uses to indicate if they are turning or changing lanes a turn signal which is a bit similar (far too similar in the context of driving) to traffic signal, which sort of explains the use of traffic light. In an encyclopedia it doesn't matter, just pick one usage for the majority of the article, acknowledge the other(s [what about stoplight?]), in accordance with WP:engvar. Synchronism (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a nefarious ulterior motive here-- personally I think once it's settled we just make sure consistently we say signal or light throughout the article. UK Highway Code (about as reputable a source as you can get) calls "flashers" on cars "turn signals", the distinction seems to be between the SIGNAL i.e. what you are SAYING and the LIGHT which is the physical way you are saying it (by means of a lamp); hence it lists "hand signals" and "traffic light signals"-- though nowhere that I could find is "traffic light" used exclusively (but maybe I missed it), and it's oddly silent on the use of [[trafficator]s.


 * There's a minor advantage to "traffic signal", I think, in that the actual physical descriptions, LEDs incandescent bulbs and all that hardware stuff, can go off to another article called perhaps "traffic light" (or something). So a modest first proposal:


 * Move this article to "traffic signal", with all that entails. (Redirects etc.)
 * Ensure consistent use of "traffic signal" throughout (perhaps making noted exceptions in regional sections).
 * Move out the hardware stuff to e.g. "traffic light" or "traffic light technology" or something like that.
 * Add dab page or "otheruses" at the top of the each article.
 * Having set the "precedent", Other sections could then be migrated out of the main article as appropriate, after discussion.


 * It's quite a busy article for being worked on, but this ordering would seem to minimise the chances of edit clashes. Any opinions? SimonTrew (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with those proposed steps. However, I don't know how you traditionally proceed with the changes in WP community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.200.118 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article is too long (or mature enough in terms of references and copyediting) to really necessitate splitting off other articles. The technology section looks like it only has one in-line reference, so splitting off that section would create a weaker article and decrease the comprehensiveness of this one. The lack of citations would further complicate efforts to summarize the new article within this one. Best to improve what we have and talk about splitting down the road. Synchronism (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to RonhJones' comments in re: the location of invention, the article - while it does make mention of their invention occurring in England- the traffic signal as we know it today saw its invention in Ohio, which is a state in the U.S. Also, the industry which manufactures the devices refers to them as traffic signals as opposed to traffic lights. For reference, check out this series of YouTube clips from 3M, manufacturer of the 3M High Visibility Signals line of traffic signals (Promotional video advertising the features of the HVS system), and this installation tutorial for the Model 131 HVS head here:  (part 1) and  (part 2).  Note that 3M refers to them as a "signal" (or signal face, as illustrated by the portion showing the instruction manual for installation of an HVS head).Srosenow 98 (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think, and I am just going from memory (all my books are in store), the mention of the first traffic light being in Ohio is mentioned in Bill Bryson's Made in America. I only note that so we can put it down as RS. SimonTrew (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Turning signals and rules" section
Does anyone agree with me that this section, and several individual paragraphs, are getting way too long? (The whole article is way too long, but that's for another day.) It needs to be broken up a bit, I think. Any comments? SimonTrew (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. personally, I think it should go in a separate article on the rules of the road.--Triskele Jim (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of what is presented there is redundant or unsourced. There are articles on the many different rules of the road←redirects to a section of Traffic, a summary article. These regional variations are partially covered in articles like Driving in the United Kingdom, Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, Driving in the United States or Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China. These articles present much of what is present in this section.  The section should be trimmed and turned into more of a summary pointing interested readers where they want to go. Synchronism (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about content
In the History section of Traffic Lights, there is the following statement: Ashville, Ohio claims to be the location of the oldest working traffic light in the United States, used at an intersection of public roads until 1982 when it was moved to a local museum.[6]

Then below in the Dummy Lights section the following is written: A dummy light is a traffic light which stands on a pedestal in the middle of an intersection. There are at least three which still operate in the United States today, all located in New York State: Beacon, Canajoharie and Croton-on-Hudson. There have been number of requests in recent years for these traffic lights to be removed due to safety concerns, but the historic value have kept these landmarks at their original locations.

Wouldn't the fact that the Ashville Ohio one now resides in a museum make it not the oldest, or is it simply because it's got power still going to it? Maybe that section needs to change to add that the oldest still operating Dummy Light resides in X and find out which one of the 3 in NYS is the oldest?

Thanks. tigkargman@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.121.176 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Countdown lights
How about a section explaining the countdown timers on car and pedestrian traffic lights in several countries?  Tu rk ey ph an t 10:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That would make a good new sub-article. If somebody sets it up, I'd be happy to contribute to it.Schwede66 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

on radio 4
brief note as i dont have a good internet connexion the history of traffic lights has been on radio 4 today adam hart davies at 4 BST might be worth someone checking it out derek morgn black guy that i only say cos this was 1922 or `1923 and of course blacks were not so welcome at that time that is the only reason i say it may be interesting to mention. SimonTrew (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What is Radio 4? And what are you talking about? Gingermint (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

US view?
This article was apparently tagged for not having a worldwide view and focusing too much on the US. However, in the opening paragraph, there is clearly a leaning towards the Commonwealth view (amber vs. yellow) [which I will try to make more neutral], and throughout the article there are many explanations and examples of traffic lights used worldwide. I came to the talk page and apparently whoever tagged the article hasn't even made a case for its tagging. I think the tag should be removed. Any objections? -Eaglescout1984 12:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 (talk • contribs)


 * The article covers worldwide views in most parts in my opinion, but the warrants are very US specific. I'm ok with the the main tag being removed.Schwede66 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2009

(UTC)

The article does not at all seem to be US specific. Gingermint (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)