Dresden: German traffic light stays red for 28 years

[Independent voter]

It has to be red and never turn green by regulation.

This is what happens when you give government too much tax money.






https://www.thelocal.de/20150615/the...never-goes-out

In Dresden much has changed over the last 28 years. Communism collapsed, democracy blossomed and the city was reborn. But one thing has remained the same - a traffic light which has stayed red since 1987.
The traffic light stands at the intersection of four different streets just south of the river Elbe. It instructs drivers who want to drive straight ahead to wait. Those who wish to turn right into Güntzustraße can do so at any time as long as they take due caution.

But anyone who waits to cross into Gerokstraße could be waiting a long time - almost three decades if they are patient enough.

That this traffic light has never changed to green is no accident. It has been planned so by the city administration.

And the total cost of maintaining this one traffic light over almost three decades runs to roughly €150,000. Every year maintenance and running costs come to €5,500.

While this may seem nonsensical and a waste of money to your average motorist, the Dresden authorities can explain in exact detail why the light never changes colour.

And their explanation might show another habitat that dies hard - a love of convoluted, self-defeating regulation.

“The administrative regulation as set out in section 37 paragraph 2 of the of the transportation regulations alludes to the need for an exact plan for traffic light signals,” a spokesperson told The Local.

The planning of the junction is based upon directives set out by The Research Institute for Street Transportation.

“Because the green light means ‘transport is free to go’ all the other lights in conflict to this one must show red. That also includes the light on Ziegelstraße.”

“The red light instructs: stop at the intersection. After stopping one is also allowed to turn right if there is a sign to the right of the traffic light that shows a green arrow on a black background.

“Because on Ziegelstraße one is only allowed to turn right, in accordance with regulation 27 section 37 of the transport regulations, we can do without using the traffic signal’s green light.”

All well and good. But why not simply do away with the red light? Would a sign not do?

“As long as Ziegelstraße has access to the junction, we cannot get rid of the traffic lights,” said the spokesperson. “Stop signs do not correspond to traffic light systems and do not fulfill the same set of regulations.”

So, we are all clearer for that then.

But the truly puzzling thing, reports Berliner Zeitung, is that included in annual maintenance costs are not only replacement red light bulbs, but amber and green ones too.

[Sunseeker]

Germans love regulations?

Also, who cares? Why are you posting this? Some holier-than-thou jab at big government? Over a stop-light? In Germany?

[Ravenblade]

It has to be red and never turn green by regulation.

This is what happens when you give government too much tax money.

Have you actually read the article? Methinks you haven't. Please do so again and come back with the right conclusion. Money isn't the issue and withdrawing it wouldn't solve the issue described in the article. Less than a meagre 6,000 € for a traffic light may still worth it if the result is lives being saved.

[Puri]

That's the crossing and traffic light btw: https://www.google.de/maps/place/Ger...644288!6m1!1e1

For Germany that's rather unusual. The common approach (if it is a dangerous crossing) would be blinking yellow lights and a stop sign (which also would not really save money). So I actually don't understand what they mean when they say "“Stop signs do not correspond to traffic light systems and do not fulfill the same set of regulations.”".
De facto a stop sign plus only right turn allowed sign would suffice. If it is dangerous a blinking traffic light would be common.
A red light plus the green arrow sign also does exactly the same as the previously mentioned, but blinking lights cost more money. So actually it's a non issue.

[Azadina]

Have you actually read the article? Methinks you haven't. Please do so again and come back with the right conclusion. Money isn't the issue and withdrawing it wouldn't solve the issue described in the article. Less than a meagre 6,000 € for a traffic light may still worth it if the result is lives being saved.

Indeed. Still, you might have to explain in detail the concept of peoples lives being valued more than profits. It's foreign concept overseas

[Noradin]

This is obviously the most expedient way to do this, because it requires no additional legislation be written just to accomodate this single crossing with an exception.

[Orange Joe]

It has to be red and never turn green by regulation.

This is what happens when you give government too much tax money.

Curious how you came to that conclusion. Did you even read it?

[AwkwardSquirtle]

Bizarre. I think the argument they're trying to make is that if the other bits of the junction have traffic lights, this bit has to as well. I'd personally go with something like

but what do I know?

[Orange Joe]

Bizarre. I think the argument they're trying to make is that if the other bits of the junction have traffic lights, this bit has to as well. I'd personally go with something like

but what do I know?

Do you know the traffic laws their? They basically said they have to do it because of how the laws are.



My god people at least try to read the article.

[Cerilis]

It has to be red and never turn green by regulation.

This is what happens when you give government too much tax money.

Nono, what happens when communes have too much tax money around here is that they start to build roundabouts everywhere.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

Do you know the traffic laws their? They basically said they have to do it because of how the laws are.



My god people at least try to read the article.

I did read the article. I in fact paraphrased their description of the road rule in my post. Given that this particular situation could be solved more simply with a sign alone, I personally think it would make more sense to amend the law, since this solution to the problem seems to me more logical.

[Endus]

So I actually don't understand what they mean when they say "“Stop signs do not correspond to traffic light systems and do not fulfill the same set of regulations.”".
De facto a stop sign plus only right turn allowed sign would suffice. If it is dangerous a blinking traffic light would be common.
A red light plus the green arrow sign also does exactly the same as the previously mentioned, but blinking lights cost more money. So actually it's a non issue.

I don't know the bylaws in this particular city, but I've seen bylaws in other places that mandate traffic lights if an intersection sees enough traffic. It's the same reason you'll often see four-way stops in subdivision back streets, but traffic lights at major cross sections; the difference is the traffic load.

The purpose of traffic lights is to manage the flow of traffic; they aren't used the same way as stop signs. The only way this one is somewhat comparable to one is that it's always red, and like I said, it's quite possible that traffic levels require it to be a traffic light. That's what they mean by "do not fulfull the same set of regulations".

[Puri]

I don't know the bylaws in this particular city, but I've seen bylaws in other places that mandate traffic lights if an intersection sees enough traffic. It's the same reason you'll often see four-way stops in subdivision back streets, but traffic lights at major cross sections; the difference is the traffic load.

The purpose of traffic lights is to manage the flow of traffic; they aren't used the same way as stop signs. The only way this one is somewhat comparable to one is that it's always red, and like I said, it's quite possible that traffic levels require it to be a traffic light. That's what they mean by "do not fulfull the same set of regulations".

Traffic law is a federal law in Germany (Strassenverkehrsordnung), so local bylaws are not possible here.

And it is indeed regulated just as you say: a traffic light becomes mandatory if it is a dangerous crossing or heavy (or fast) traffic (http://www.stvo.de/strassenverkehrso...und-gruenpfeil).

But the common approach for those side streets is the blinking yellow light, not a constant red one. This in particular makes this traffic light unusual, so unusual it even gets an internet article.

[Azadina]

Nono, what happens when communes have too much tax money around here is that they start to build roundabouts everywhere.

Maybe people should speed less The entire purpose of those is to slow down the traffic.

[Adolecent]

Nono, what happens when communes have too much tax money around here is that they start to build roundabouts everywhere.

My country in 1 big roundabout, very efficient and save.

[Ravenblade]

I did read the article. I in fact paraphrased their description of the road rule in my post. Given that this particular situation could be solved more simply with a sign alone, I personally think it would make more sense to amend the law, since this solution to the problem seems to me more logical.

Too much effort for one single by-road. We are talking about this gem after all.
Amending the law for this single case would have to go through many technical and design reviews as well. It really is a non-issue. It's Saxony after all. Removing that one would only reduce the amount of oddities in that state by a tiny fraction of a percentile.

[Acidbaron]

Still wondering what this has to do with higher taxes to have a better more functioning government.

Something something evul socialism? That's the only far fetched thing i can think of. Since we all know to proof how something elsewhere doesn't work we take out one single incident that can fit or narrative and ignore everything else! Since context be damned and you wonder why americans have the reputation that they do.

[Independent voter]

Nono, what happens when communes have too much tax money around here is that they start to build roundabouts everywhere.

Roundabouts are road features from Hell, first time I went into one I got stuck going around in circles for a half hour until this kind old lady pointed the way out. They reduce accidents because everyone is terrified and alert when they are in a roundabout.

[Ravenblade]

Still wondering what this has to do with higher taxes to have a better more functioning government.

Something something evul socialism? That's the only far fetched thing i can think of. Since we all know to proof how something elsewhere doesn't work we take out one single incident that can fit or narrative and ignore everything else! Since context be damned and you wonder why americans have the reputation that they do.

These 5,500 € could be spent on military, obviously. Hundred bullets a year keep the red socialist traffic light away.

[Activi-T]

Brings a new meaning to a red light district.