Nor do I.

On 15/06/2013 14:20, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:13:55 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2013\06\15 11:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2013 02:34, wrote:
On 15/06/2013 01:35, wrote:
In article , () wrote:

Hello,

I saw this about pelican crossings and the associated crossing
signals.

BTW, I've noticed for a while now that the green on pedestrian
crossing signals no longer flash flash, but rather go dark. Is that
because of the stress that the flashing signal puts on the bulb
filaments, thus meaning more money expended for bulbs, plus the
labour involved in changing them?

All new installations use LEDs so that is a diminishing problem if it
exists
at all.


And the old ones? Because here in London the green pedestrian crossing
phases turn off, rather than flash.

Could this be due to the differences between proper Real Lamps
(incandescent ones) and the newer Pretend Lamps which have very poor
performance just when turned on or off and are of limited value for
signalling purposes for that reason?

Except that modern traffic lights are LEDs which have excellent response
times and are therefore perfect for signalling.

Indeed, and the effect is very obvious with the many road vehicles
(even buses) that have LED indicators. They really do switch on and
off instantly compared to the old incandescent bulbs. The next
Mercedes S Class will ditch incandescent bulbs entirely, using nearly
500 LEDs instead, thus saving power, performing better and largely
eliminating the need to replace failed bulbs.

That will put an additional premium on the price, no doubt.

" wrote:
On 15/06/2013 14:20, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:13:55 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2013\06\15 11:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2013 02:34, wrote:
On 15/06/2013 01:35, wrote:
In article , () wrote:

Hello,

I saw this about pelican crossings and the associated crossing
signals.

BTW, I've noticed for a while now that the green on pedestrian
crossing signals no longer flash flash, but rather go dark. Is that
because of the stress that the flashing signal puts on the bulb
filaments, thus meaning more money expended for bulbs, plus the
labour involved in changing them?

All new installations use LEDs so that is a diminishing problem if it
exists
at all.


And the old ones? Because here in London the green pedestrian crossing
phases turn off, rather than flash.

Could this be due to the differences between proper Real Lamps
(incandescent ones) and the newer Pretend Lamps which have very poor
performance just when turned on or off and are of limited value for
signalling purposes for that reason?

Except that modern traffic lights are LEDs which have excellent response
times and are therefore perfect for signalling.

Indeed, and the effect is very obvious with the many road vehicles
(even buses) that have LED indicators. They really do switch on and
off instantly compared to the old incandescent bulbs. The next
Mercedes S Class will ditch incandescent bulbs entirely, using nearly
500 LEDs instead, thus saving power, performing better and largely
eliminating the need to replace failed bulbs.

That will put an additional premium on the price, no doubt.

Well, each new generation of S Class introduces many innovations which
eventually trickle down to cheaper cars. Some eventually become standard in
all cars (things like anti-lock brakes).

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:35:53 +0100,
wrote:
BTW, I've noticed for a while now that the green on pedestrian crossing
signals no longer flash flash, but rather go dark.

Newer crossings are called Puffins and work differently to Pelicans, more
like crossings at junctions. They detect pedestrians, so that the light
for vehicles is kept red until the pedestrian has finished crossing. This
is supposed to make them feel safer than with the old system of flashing
lights in which drivers decided when a pedestrian had got far enough for
them to start off. If you start to cross when the green man isn't showing,
the lights may not wait for you to finish before changing.

The crossings are also supposed to be clever enough not to stop traffic if
the pedestrian who pressed the button crosses before the lights change, or
goes away.

The blackout period on pedestrian crossings is the equivalent of the
all-red for drivers, whose purpose is to stop red light-jumpers causing
too many collisions.

Colin McKenzie

--
Cycling in the UK is about as safe as walking, and helmets don't make it
safer. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

That will be an improvement. The current system wherein the pedestrian
has crossed the road and is now a hundred yards away but the traffic is still
not allowed to move is ludicrous and annoying.

Robin9 wrote:
Colin McKenzie;137412 Wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:35:53 +0100,
wrote:-
BTW, I've noticed for a while now that the green on pedestrian crossing

signals no longer flash flash, but rather go dark.-

The crossings are also supposed to be clever enough not to stop traffic
if
the pedestrian who pressed the button crosses before the lights change,
or
goes away.


That will be an improvement. The current system wherein the pedestrian
has crossed the road and is now a hundred yards away but the traffic is
still
not allowed to move is ludicrous and annoying.

Is it really ludicrous? Do you often think "heavens, what madness must
have been visited upon this place that the signal remains red and yet I
could travel without killing anyone? My word, what kind of mad world
exists in which I have to share a public highway with other people and the
priority is not given to me? Insanity!"

If so, you must be a barrel of laughs at light controlled junctions. "The
light is red and yet there is no vehicle crossing in front of me - madness
has taken over the world! I must press on lest this ludicrous situation is
allowed to prevail!"


I bet you're one of those people incapable of picking the correct lane or
indicating properly at roundabouts... "I shall not let any lunatic notions
hinder my progress!"

What a silly answer, so typical of the anti-motor car brigade who can't make
a rational argument and, seemingly, can't even read properly.

I specifically referred to the situation where the pedestrian has crossed the
road. The question of sharing the public highway does not come into it
because I have not protested about the pedestrian's right to cross the road
safely.

Please use your brains before ranting in public.

Although Clank's posting was unfair to you, Robin, very unfair, it definitely had a lot of humour. Clank - you put yourself forward for the task of annihilating Robin and you failed.
So with great reluctance - and despite the humour...
You're fired.

Perhaps my sense of humour is as feeble as his ability to argue!

Robin9 wrote:
Offramp;137586 Wrote:
Although Clank's posting was unfair to you, Robin, very unfair, it
definitely had a lot of humour. Clank - you put yourself forward for the
task of annihilating Robin and you failed.
So with great reluctance - and despite the humour...
You're fired.
Perhaps my sense of humour is as feeble as his ability to argue!

If only your sense of humour reached the dizzying heights of the point
whizzing over your head I bet you'd be a lot more popular at parties; alas,
it is evidently as feeble as your understanding of what the word
"ludicrous" means.

For the avoidance of doubt, the word "ludicrous" does /not/ mean
"inconvenient to Robin9."


'HTH,' as I believe they say in the modern vernacular.