- 130comments
- 29comments
- 81comments
- 4comments
- 143comments
- 3comments
- —discuss
- 26comments
- 2comments
- 70comments
- 94comments
- 419comments
- 276comments
- 8comments
- 41comments
- 3comments
- 117comments
- 408comments
- 22comments
- 189comments
- 51comments
- 66comments
- 6comments
- 299comments
- 44comments
- 11comments
- 291comments
- 116comments
- 266comments
- 54comments
It blows my mind how many people don't realize that's what those circles near the stop bar of an intersection are for, and will then stop 3+ car lengths behind the stop bar, and then can't figure out why the light is never going green.
This is a major problem at an intersection near me that I used to have to drive through frequently. Two intersections, only about 500 feet between them, and MOST traffic during rush out coming from just one of the directions, yet the lights were often exactly out of sync. The first light would be red while the next one was green. Then the first would go green while the other went red, and traffic would only move about 500 feet then stop for 2 minutes. The backup would last well over a mile.
My cynical ass would not be surprised at all if oil/gas companies were lobbying against ASCT because idling cars are buying more fuel. Wouldn't be too hard to convince people that an ASCT would cost too much to implement while not producing significant traffic benefits.
In San Francisco (as well as other cities I've lived in) they put police in the middle of intersections during rush hour to guide traffic (i.e., stop cars before they drive into an intersection that they'll get stuck in the middle of). Seems woefully inefficient
ASCT is standard practice (and has been standard practice) on most junctions in most towns and cities in the UK for over 20 years.