A color-blind person wouldn't know if a single light is red or green.
If the other lamps have bulbs in them, then I'll ask why. But the shape of the signal has to be consistent even when redundant.
If the other lamps have bulbs in them, then I'll ask why. But the shape of the signal has to be consistent even when redundant.
EDIT: And for fun, in British Columbia, a flashing green is the same as a solid green except that it usually indicates a pedestrian operated light. I.e. it will always be green unless a pedestrian who wishes to cross pushes a button to activate it. If it is at an intersection, perpendicular traffic generally just gets a stop sign. Moreover, I recently learned that, in Ontario, a flashing green can be used to indicate an advance green. I.e. oncoming traffic is still red, so feel free to turn left.
In most jurisdictions in North America, you are meant to yield to pedestrians at all crossings. Further, there is an implied crossing at every intersection regardless of whether there are any signs or other markings. If you see a pedestrian standing on a corner, you are supposed to stop for them. Of course, what the law says and what people actually do are not always the same.
The traffic rules you describe sound… ridiculous. How is one supposed to design a free-flowing intersection if anyone may halt the traffic in any particular part at any time? In the UK, one can almost always find crossings shortly downstream of a roundabout, and pedestrian crossings at traffic lights are controlled by lights.
Flashing orange means yield (including to pedestrians, though few people are aware of that).
> 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.