I think you and several others here are falling for the perfect solution fallacy. That channel has uploaded 17 videos in the year and half since the new signage compared to 28 in the year and half before. If the smart crossing reduced accidents my that much, it would save nearly 3,000 lives in the UK each year. A system doesn't need to be perfect as long as it reduces the problem. Don't get me wrong, this crossing hasn't been proven yet. It might not change anything, but even if it's as effective as the 11foot8 signage, it's a substantial improvement over the current system.
I'd be all for trying it. But it's the UK. Anything the government wants to start putting in place means everyone else has to start spending more money. Stuff is expensive here as it is, with the brexit crap going on and all that
One thing with those traffic lights lets say its rush hour all pedestrians walk over and it wont turn red for them so you cant drive over it anymore until the pedestrians stop wich could take really rather long and wich is basically the biggest flaw of that system
To you it's a flaw. To most "Urban Architects" of today, it's a function. A lot of people here seem to think these problems are approached in a neutral way by the powers-that-be but they tend to see cars not as a convenient means of individual transportation but rather a problem that must be dealt with. With that perspective, this system looks like a Godsend. Plus, it seems like it would be useful mostly in tiny towns/hamlets where driving fast is not really an option. In big cities? Gross underestimation of negative side effects or, like I said above, deliberate attempt at making driving more cumbersome/forcing the implementation of more invasive "driving aids" and/or mandatory self-driving cars. For the Childrun(Tm)! Plus, I have serious questions regarding the maintenance bills of such a contraption.......
So London has started charging people who drive there with cars made before 2006. Have a small, low emissions hatchback made in 2002? You pay. Have a big engined, high HP muscle car with little to no regards of emissions made in 2015? You don't pay. I don't see how this helps anything atall. It really just sounds like another way for the government to get money
Big engined, High HP muscle cars have had to pass emissions since there have been emissions standards.....
I'm not saying they didn't. A quick Google search though shows an Audi R8 V10 (2012? It doesn't show the year...) putting out around double the CO2 raiting than what a 1.0 2001 Polo puts out. Clearly, the Polo has better emissions than the R8. And being an older car, no-one is putting out emissions on making more. Meaning the R8 puts out more emissions both on the road, and before it's even been made. I'm not saying they should stop making new cars. But they should stop trying to get rid of all the old ones.
Well..... If you buy into the whole "Co2 is a pollutant" thing, everyone should be zipping around on electric scooters or packed into busses and light rail anyway.
I don't really buy into it. I just picked the top Google search. 'Feeling lucky' I suppose. But still. What they've been doing so far to 'fix' is probably the worst way of going about it
One of the coolest cop cars here in the states is actually the caprice. Because A) it was Australian and only for police and B) it wasn't cancelled early like the SS which means if cops mess one up I won't be depressed like I would be with an SS.
