LED traffic lights and the danger of "but sometimes" arguments

[Underseer]

[YOUTUBE]GiYO1TObNz8[/YOUTUBE]

Video Summary
A lot of municipalities have been replacing incandescent bulbs in traffic lights with LED lights. This has a lot of advantages.

• Incandescent bulbs burn out more frequently, which means more maintenance cost replacing them. A typical intersection has a lot of lights, so you may be looking at replacing incandescent bulbs an average of every 2 months at a given intersection.
• Old-fashioned traffic lights are made to be opened so that the incandescent bulbs can be replaced. This means that the inside can get dirty, which in turn makes the light less bright, which makes them less safe, and requires even more maintenance.
• LED lights use about 1/10^th as much energy. Considering the large number of bulbs in every intersection, you're talking about a significant expense in electricity over the course of a year.

But sometimes[ent]hellip[/ent]

• Because LEDs are so much more efficient, they give off less heat, which means they are more likely to accumulate snow when there is heavy snowfall and strong wind.

The list of advantages of LED lights is large, and the cost savings significant, but because someone found one particular case in which incandescent bulbs are better, some places are avoiding the upgrade to LED.

Even if heaters in the traffic lights cost more energy than incandescent bulbs, they only need to be run when snowfall is heavy enough to require their use. Even with the added energy consumption and added maintenance of heaters, you're still looking at significant cost savings, but humans are stupid. Find one little thing wrong with an upgrade, and instead of looking for the most sensible solution, many humans use it as an excuse to keep things as they are. Because change is scary for some people.

A big part of this problem is sensationalist "news" articles that clearly exploit the curmudgeon in all of us ("See? Them thar new-fangled LED traffic lights is more trouble then they's worth! Ah dun tole ya! Didn't ah dun tole yah?").

 

[Bronzeage]

The primary competition to new technology is always the old technology.

I don't live in a place where snow on traffic lights is a problem, but if I did, taking down a reliable system and replacing it with a cheaper system, which had a critical flaw in expected weather conditions, would be a bad idea. I wouldn't want to be the public works director who signed off on the new traffic lights that shut down city traffic during the first snow storm of the season.

The good new is, heating technology has advanced just as fast as lighting technology, so I'm sure the people who make traffic lights already have a solution in hand.

 

[bilby]

The primary competition to new technology is always the old technology.

I don't live in a place where snow on traffic lights is a problem, but if I did, taking down a reliable system and replacing it with a cheaper system, which had a critical flaw in expected weather conditions, would be a bad idea. I wouldn't want to be the public works director who signed off on the new traffic lights that shut down city traffic during the first snow storm of the season.

The good new is, heating technology has advanced just as fast as lighting technology, so I'm sure the people who make traffic lights already have a solution in hand.

I am sure they do; But sometimes solutions end up making new problems. So it shouldn't be implemented.

 

[Bronzeage]

The primary competition to new technology is always the old technology.

I don't live in a place where snow on traffic lights is a problem, but if I did, taking down a reliable system and replacing it with a cheaper system, which had a critical flaw in expected weather conditions, would be a bad idea. I wouldn't want to be the public works director who signed off on the new traffic lights that shut down city traffic during the first snow storm of the season.

The good new is, heating technology has advanced just as fast as lighting technology, so I'm sure the people who make traffic lights already have a solution in hand.

I am sure they do; But sometimes solutions end up making new problems. So it shouldn't be implemented.

My father the engineer said, "You build a dam to anticipate the maximum water level, not the average water level.

New problems sometimes require a new solution, but often an old solution can be applied. There was a lot of resistance to electricity in houses, when this was a new thing. I can imagine someone demonstrating the safety of an oil lamp by dipping their finger into a can of kerosene and then taking it out, with a challenge to anyone to do the same to a light socket.

If I were selling heated LED traffic lamps, this video would be part of my sales pitch.

 

[Underseer]

The primary competition to new technology is always the old technology.

I don't live in a place where snow on traffic lights is a problem, but if I did, taking down a reliable system and replacing it with a cheaper system, which had a critical flaw in expected weather conditions, would be a bad idea. I wouldn't want to be the public works director who signed off on the new traffic lights that shut down city traffic during the first snow storm of the season.

The good new is, heating technology has advanced just as fast as lighting technology, so I'm sure the people who make traffic lights already have a solution in hand.

If you watch the video, the benefits far outweigh this one problem. The problem occurs extremely rarely, and there are already solutions on the market that completely eliminate the problem and still save your municipality hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But you would seriously avoid your town saving 6 figures per year for this?

And mind you, the old system you want to leave in place is far less reliable. That's one of the reasons the new system costs less money.

 

[Bronzeage]

The primary competition to new technology is always the old technology.

I don't live in a place where snow on traffic lights is a problem, but if I did, taking down a reliable system and replacing it with a cheaper system, which had a critical flaw in expected weather conditions, would be a bad idea. I wouldn't want to be the public works director who signed off on the new traffic lights that shut down city traffic during the first snow storm of the season.

The good new is, heating technology has advanced just as fast as lighting technology, so I'm sure the people who make traffic lights already have a solution in hand.

If you watch the video, the benefits far outweigh this one problem. The problem occurs extremely rarely, and there are already solutions on the market that completely eliminate the problem and still save your municipality hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But you would seriously avoid your town saving 6 figures per year for this?

And mind you, the old system you want to leave in place is far less reliable. That's one of the reasons the new system costs less money.

I think I watched this video several months ago. Every good engineering decision has to include two elements, the assessment of risk, and the factor of safety. In my neighborhood, snow on traffic lights is so low a risk, it doesn't need to be considered a risk. Farther north of here, it could be a bigger deal.

One thing is certain. The City engineer who is responsible for traffic lights, knows exactly how many times in the past ten years that traffic lights in his district were disabled by snow. It's his responsibility to insure the city purchases lights that will operate in all expected conditions. When snow disables traffic lamps, it will happen during to worst possible conditions, when road surfaces are slickest and visibility is the worst. There's really no cost savings which justifies endangering people, when there is such a simple solution.

 

[Underseer]

The primary competition to new technology is always the old technology.

I don't live in a place where snow on traffic lights is a problem, but if I did, taking down a reliable system and replacing it with a cheaper system, which had a critical flaw in expected weather conditions, would be a bad idea. I wouldn't want to be the public works director who signed off on the new traffic lights that shut down city traffic during the first snow storm of the season.

The good new is, heating technology has advanced just as fast as lighting technology, so I'm sure the people who make traffic lights already have a solution in hand.

If you watch the video, the benefits far outweigh this one problem. The problem occurs extremely rarely, and there are already solutions on the market that completely eliminate the problem and still save your municipality hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But you would seriously avoid your town saving 6 figures per year for this?

And mind you, the old system you want to leave in place is far less reliable. That's one of the reasons the new system costs less money.

I think I watched this video several months ago. Every good engineering decision has to include two elements, the assessment of risk, and the factor of safety. In my neighborhood, snow on traffic lights is so low a risk, it doesn't need to be considered a risk. Farther north of here, it could be a bigger deal.

One thing is certain. The City engineer who is responsible for traffic lights, knows exactly how many times in the past ten years that traffic lights in his district were disabled by snow. It's his responsibility to insure the city purchases lights that will operate in all expected conditions. When snow disables traffic lamps, it will happen during to worst possible conditions, when road surfaces are slickest and visibility is the worst. There's really no cost savings which justifies endangering people, when there is such a simple solution.

Again, you can buy LED lights with heaters built into them. This is a non-issue.

You're illustrating exactly what the video was talking about. You're ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater for bad reasons.

 

[Tigers!]

What amazes me is that he was still enthusiastic after talking about traffic lights for 18 minutes.

 

[Underseer]

He has lots of long videos about dead technologies that no one is ever going to use again, but his tax dollars to his local municipality is being wasted right now because of this idiocy. His enthusiasm for the subject is hardly surprising.

 

[ronburgundy]

I can't watch the video with sound. Do they explain how the "heaters" in the LED lights could be set up to only come on during snowstorms? I can imagine temp-sensitive switch in each light, but that would still mean the heater is on much of the winter in those places.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The primary competition to new technology is always the old technology.

I don't live in a place where snow on traffic lights is a problem, but if I did, taking down a reliable system and replacing it with a cheaper system, which had a critical flaw in expected weather conditions, would be a bad idea. I wouldn't want to be the public works director who signed off on the new traffic lights that shut down city traffic during the first snow storm of the season.

The good new is, heating technology has advanced just as fast as lighting technology, so I'm sure the people who make traffic lights already have a solution in hand.

I am sure they do; But sometimes solutions end up making new problems. So it shouldn't be implemented.

My father the engineer said, "You build a dam to anticipate the maximum water level, not the average water level.

Actually, you building the dam assuming all the water just instantly drained out of it.

New problems sometimes require a new solution, but often an old solution can be applied. There was a lot of resistance to electricity in houses, when this was a new thing. I can imagine someone demonstrating the safety of an oil lamp by dipping their finger into a can of kerosene and then taking it out, with a challenge to anyone to do the same to a light socket.

If I were selling heated LED traffic lamps, this video would be part of my sales pitch.

I've got to think there is a solution, but have noticed that some surfaces (like reflective survey targets) just attract snow. I wonder if a device could be put in the light that'd vibrate or create a shock to knock off some snow (if that could work).

 

[Worldtraveller]

"But sometimes" is the gun rights' peoples argument. It works, consistently, for a disturbing chunk of the population.

So why replace old technology with something new?!?

 

[bilby]

The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.

- Microcosmographia Academica by F M Cornford, 1908

 

[Gun Nut]

The primary competition to new technology is always the old technology.

I don't live in a place where snow on traffic lights is a problem, but if I did, taking down a reliable system and replacing it with a cheaper system, which had a critical flaw in expected weather conditions, would be a bad idea. I wouldn't want to be the public works director who signed off on the new traffic lights that shut down city traffic during the first snow storm of the season.

The good new is, heating technology has advanced just as fast as lighting technology, so I'm sure the people who make traffic lights already have a solution in hand.

I am sure they do; But sometimes solutions end up making new problems. So it shouldn't be implemented.

My father the engineer said, "You build a dam to anticipate the maximum water level, not the average water level.

New problems sometimes require a new solution, but often an old solution can be applied. There was a lot of resistance to electricity in houses, when this was a new thing. I can imagine someone demonstrating the safety of an oil lamp by dipping their finger into a can of kerosene and then taking it out, with a challenge to anyone to do the same to a light socket.

If I were selling heated LED traffic lamps, this video would be part of my sales pitch.

The "resistance" to electricity in the home was not about having it at all, it was about the delivery mechanism.... a battle between Edison and Tesla. It was a smear campaign against each other... AC versus DC... where animals were electrocuted to demonstrate how dangerous the other guy's system was, and other devious things.

I wonder how many light bulb factories the guy owns that made this video.

 

[Rhea]

It's his responsibility to insure the city purchases lights that will operate in all expected conditions. When snow disables traffic lamps, it will happen during to worst possible conditions, when road surfaces are slickest and visibility is the worst. There's really no cost savings which justifies endangering people, when there is such a simple solution.

The snow storm is not the worst possible condition for traffic lights to be non-working. That would be rush-hour during school-bus commute time in tourist season. In snow storms, people are driving slowly and using their brakes early. Roads are slickest in ice, which does not obscure lights and visibility is worst in fog which also does not obscure lights when close enough to matter.

FYI.

 

[Bronzeage]

My father the engineer said, "You build a dam to anticipate the maximum water level, not the average water level.

New problems sometimes require a new solution, but often an old solution can be applied. There was a lot of resistance to electricity in houses, when this was a new thing. I can imagine someone demonstrating the safety of an oil lamp by dipping their finger into a can of kerosene and then taking it out, with a challenge to anyone to do the same to a light socket.

If I were selling heated LED traffic lamps, this video would be part of my sales pitch.

The "resistance" to electricity in the home was not about having it at all, it was about the delivery mechanism.... a battle between Edison and Tesla. It was a smear campaign against each other... AC versus DC... where animals were electrocuted to demonstrate how dangerous the other guy's system was, and other devious things.

I wonder how many light bulb factories the guy owns that made this video.

My EE professor used the story of Edison and Tesla in his lecture about calculating AC power transmission. Edison's lack of Calculus and understanding of higher mathematics was the reason he refused to consider AC current as a power source.

If anyone doubts the lethal nature of DC current, I'll be happy to show them the warning labels on any of the late model hybrid automobile batteries. The labels maybe alarming, but they make it very clear that this shit can kill you.

 

[Tigers!]

The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.

- Microcosmographia Academica by F M Cornford, 1908

Sir Humphrey Appleby explains it very clearly in Yes Minister

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, if you block honours pending economies, you might create a dangerous precedent.

James Hacker: You mean that if we do the right thing this time, we might have to do the right thing again next time. It seems on that philosophy, nothing would ever get done at all.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: On the contrary, many, many things must be done...

Sir Humphrey Appleby, James Hacker: [together] but nothing must be done for the first time.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, no, Minister. What I mean is that I am fully seized of your aims and of course I will do my utmost to see that they are put into practice.

James Hacker: If you would.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: And to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions.

James Hacker: You mean no.