backtop


Print 144 comment(s) - last by AyashiKaibutsu.. on Dec 22 at 2:27 PM


A picture of the obscured LED light post-fatal crash shows just a glimmer of green. Across the country similar LED light accidents are occurring in snowy states. Some engineers blame the drivers, but many police are blaming the lights.  (Source: Yahoo)

Traditional bulbs produce enough heat to melt snow, LED designs don't.  (Source: China LED Manufacturer)
There's a major downside to this green investment

Like most industries, in the greentech industry for every success story like the Toyota Prius or Audi A3 TDI, there's some unpleasant failures.  Some failures are eclipsed by corresponding successes and prospective improvements, such as the inability of the 2011 Chevy Volt to operate efficiently in hot southwestern states.  Other failures are more severe, endangering citizens and demanding immediate action.

One example of such a failure is just now drawing attention.  Across the country, many counties have adopted LED traffic lights as an energy efficient replacement to traditional bulbs.  While accomplishing their energy saving billing superbly, the deployment had an unintended side effect.  In northern states like Wisconsin, snow and ice have been building up on the new bulbs creating a road hazard.  The critical factor appears to be that normal bulbs produce enough heat to melt the snow -- but the energy efficient LED bulbs, thanks to their efficiency, do not.

In Wisconsin, the winter weather has obscured the lights so badly that several accidents have occurred, leading to at least one fatality.  Describes Duane Kassens, a Wisconsin driver from West Bend who was involved in one of the fender benders, "I've never had to put up with this in the past.  The police officer told me the new lights weren't melting the snow. How is that safe?"

There are some options that could fix the potentially life-threatening oversight.  Weathershields or water-resistant coatings remain two leading candidates.  Heat elements also are being considered, but they could largely negate in the winter the 90 percent power savings that the LED bulbs deliver.  And there's an old-fashioned alternative -- Green Bay, Wis., police Lt. Jim Runge describes, "As far as I'm aware, all that can be done is to have crews clean off the snow by hand.  It's a bit labor-intensive."

The alternative, though, can be deadly. In Illinois a driver plowed through a blocked traffic light in April, hitting 34-year-old Lisa Richter who had the right of way.  She died from injuries sustained.  Oswego police Detective Rob Sherwood, who was involved in the Richter case comments, "Would the accident have occurred if the lights had been clear? I would be willing to bet not." 

The allure of the LED designs, though is hard to resist.  Unmodified LED bulbs save Wisconsin $750,000 a year in energy costs and they last 7 years or more, whereas traditional bulbs must be replaced every 12 to 18 months.  Describes Dave Vieth of the state Transportation Department, "With LEDs we have energy savings in excess of 80 percent, and we don't have to have crews replacing them as often. So it's clear the overall savings are pretty significant."

Some traffic engineers are defending the designs, saying accidents are the fault of bad drivers, not poor engineering.  They say that drivers should know that the law mandates drivers to treat obscured or non-functional lights as a stop sign.  States Dave Hansen, a traffic engineer with the Green Bay Department of Public Works, "It's the same as if the power is out.  If there's any question, you err on the side of caution."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Agreed
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/17/2009 2:38:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
saying accidents are the fault of bad drivers, not poor engineering. They say that drivers should know that the law mandates drivers to treat obscured or non-functional lights as a stop sign.


I've got to agree with the engineer here. No matter how much the new design sucks with regards to removing snow, you should still obey basic principles you learn in driver's ed.




RE: Agreed
By lightfoot on 12/17/2009 2:49:27 PM , Rating: 5
Do they still teach driver's ed in the US?

From what I can tell they just give a license to anyone with a pulse. And in some cases to those without one.


RE: Agreed
By Ristogod on 12/17/2009 4:12:53 PM , Rating: 5
Even a good driver could be fooled by this though. In the dark, a driver may not be able to determine whether any, some or all of the traffic lights are being obstructed by snow.

The fact of the matter is that not all technology is always better.

I will agree though that the majority of drivers out on the road seem to be off on some other planet with their thoughts.


RE: Agreed
By clovell on 12/17/2009 5:18:50 PM , Rating: 4
Not sure why you got rated down - it's a valid point - during snow, visibility is reduced - particularly at night. If the lights are obstructed, they'd be hard to notice they're even there.

I live halfway between Chicago and Milwaukee - if you folks disagree, how about posting a rational response rather than just rating down thoughtful comments.


RE: Agreed
By StevoLincolnite on 12/17/2009 8:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's because instead of "Worth reading" and "Not worth Reading" - People see it as "I agree" and "I disagree".

Also this might sound like a stupid question... But whats with the traffic lights that have 5 lights in it? (Please note: I don't live in the US, and all of our traffic lights only have 3 lights on them.)


RE: Agreed
By ebakke on 12/17/2009 9:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
The bottom two lights are traditionally for left turns. One is a green arrow, and one is a yellow arrow. When either are illuminated, you have the right of way to turn. When they're off, you default to the 3 lights above. If it's red, you wait. If it's green, you yield to oncoming traffic.


RE: Agreed
By Souka on 12/18/2009 1:53:46 AM , Rating: 3
and if it's yellow, you go really fast! :)


RE: Agreed
By ebakke on 12/18/2009 10:20:18 AM , Rating: 2
In my parts, it seems yellow means "meh, do whatever the hell you want."


RE: Agreed
By Spookster on 12/18/2009 12:49:20 PM , Rating: 4
Odd here in Iowa red also means do whatever the hell you want.


RE: Agreed
By Kakao on 12/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Agreed
By Moishe on 12/18/2009 1:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ridiculous.
"Worth" as determined by the individual really comes right down to agree or disagree *most* of the time. This is human nature.

The only time you get "worth reading, but I also disagree" is when people take time to think *and* they are honest. It's a small slice of the population.


RE: Agreed
By DougF on 12/18/2009 9:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not sure why you got rated down
Because the parent dared to say that not all new technology was good.


RE: Agreed
By Chernobyl68 on 12/17/2009 5:40:42 PM , Rating: 3
If you can't see a light, then you stop. if you can see one of the lights, then you do what that light tells you. What does it matter if the drive cant' tell if they're obscured? either he sees a light or he doesn't, doesn't matter if its off or obscured.


RE: Agreed
By SilthDraeth on 12/17/2009 6:56:49 PM , Rating: 5
I think the poster above was alluding to the fact that you may not see the light pole at all. Not that you just couldn't see the light.

Granted, if you are driving through town, and visibility is so bad that you can't see a light pole, then you have no sense driving.

If you can see the pole, and the light is obscured, you stop at every one of them.

And you sure the hell do not go plowing through at high speed with snow, ice, or rain.


RE: Agreed
By LSUJester on 12/17/2009 8:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
I live in South Texas... what is this snow you speak of?


RE: Agreed
By wvh on 12/19/2009 11:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's a cloaking device for traffic lights. Just the power-saving LED ones, though.


RE: Agreed
By ebakke on 12/17/2009 9:09:49 PM , Rating: 3
If you're in a situation where you can't see the pole at all (which seems odd, since every stop light around me is accompanied by a large street light to illuminate the intersection) then it's no different if you have an incandescent bulb or an LED bulb. In that situation you're in whiteout conditions, and you just shouldn't be on the road.

So it seems this is only an issue when you can tell there's a street light in front of you, and in that case you damn well better stop if you can't tell what the signal is trying to tell you.


RE: Agreed
By mindless1 on 12/17/2009 10:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't recall reading that the problem only pertains to those well lit areas around you in particular.

If you can't see the pole at all, which is quite common because people are not looking for "poles", poles entirely line the streets all over the US where there are not traffic signs(!, but maybe you mean some old british style straight pole? Those are fairly uncommon in the US today), it makes all the difference in the world if you can see the light or not when it there is poor visibility for any number of reasons like fog, night-time, snow, etc.

You would claim people shouldn't be on the road after dark? That is not a viable solution.

So it is an issue if you don't see there is a traffic signal, so you don't stop, OR it is an issue if you think you see some pole and stop but it wasn't a traffic signal after all, so other cars are sliding on the snow and ice in your direction.

I'm not exusing that they shouldn't travel fast enough that they can't stop in time on snow and ice, but this is how it is and instead of blaming poor driving habits and watching accidents pile up- which will keep happing no matter how boldly fingers get pointed, it becomes important to get the traffic signals appropriate for the climate they are used in.

Frankly I would sue the manufacturer, they knew the intended use and purchaser (City of xxx in State xxx) and did not make the product appropriate for it's stated and obvious intended use.


RE: Agreed
By ebakke on 12/18/2009 10:31:06 AM , Rating: 4
Did you even read my post?

quote:
n because people are not looking for "poles"
People damn well better be looking for street lights. If there's poor visibility

Your responsibility as a driver is to be aware of the environment around you, follow the predefined rules, and adjust your speed based on the conditions of the roadway. If you're driving too fast that you can't see a street light, that is no one's fault but your own. And if the snow is so heavy that you cannot see the traffic light pole, then you likely won't be able to see the actual light anyway.

quote:
You would claim people shouldn't be on the road after dark? That is not a viable solution.
No, I never said that. We have headlights and street lights to allow for night driving, but the same argument above applies here. You have to adjust your speed based on the conditions and the visibility.

quote:
...but this is how it is and instead of blaming poor driving habits and watching accidents pile up...
NO! We don't cater to the poor decision makers. That's not how this should work. We should cater to the masses, and punish people who can't follow the rules. We shouldn't change the rules so that the idiots can't break them.

quote:
Frankly I would sue the manufacturer, they knew the intended use and purchaser (City of xxx in State xxx) and did not make the product appropriate for it's stated and obvious intended use.
And that is exactly the type of thing that's wrong with America today. "Aww crap, I screwed up. What should I do?? Ah ha! It wasn't my fault (obviously)! I'll sue that jerk!" Don't sue someone else for your inability to take responsibility for something.


RE: Agreed
By mindless1 on 12/17/2009 10:38:10 PM , Rating: 3
This is not entirely true. While driving you are supposed to be watching the road and looking for traffic signals, not looking for poles of which there are many, often several every block. If the traffic signal is not lit you are not supposed to look at things on the side of the road or constantly stop in the middle of a road because if there is no light someone may plow into your now not-moving vehicle.

These are the realities of having to travel in bad weather. When it snows or the sun goes down (Or hasn't come up yet) many people cannot just stay home. It is the responsiblity of a driver to never be in a position where they hit someone else but at the same time that is within their experience of what the visual and audible indicators are including an expectation that traffic lights work not just being lit, but being lit so you can see them.

Quite often at night there are intersections where you do not have to stop, but the intersecting street does.

If the lights are covered you can't see they are there at all because you are looking for a matte black box against a dark sky, there is no pole in the middle of the street they are suspended by wires even harder to see that stretch between posts on the sides of the roads that occur at regular intervals regardless of whether there is any traffic light nearby or not.

So, seeing a pole means nothing. You have to see the light itself and headlights are not aimed higher than the horizon unless misaimed to an illegal extent.

I am not arguing that if you see a light that has none of the elements lit you should necessarily assume you don't have to stop, BUT on the other hand I have also frequently see areas where a new light was being installed but was not operational yet and people were not supposed to stop.

In the above mentioned case since it was daylight it was obviously new because it had a plastic cover over it and the wires wrapped around the outside still not hooked up, but at night I'd have had no chance of seeing it and if in an area where you don't expect there to be a traffic light because you don't routinely traverse that route, it is quite easy to eventually run an obscured light - especially if you are not talking about only one but rather a large % of them, eventually the odds catch up.

Finally, what is this "plowing through at high speed" assumption? You can easily go only half the speed limit, to the point where you are causing traffic to back up by going to slow, and still be unable to stop in time with icy conditions that would presumably be present frequently when there is enough precipitation and temperature decrease sufficient to freeze up on traffic lights - especially if other people are randomly stopping because they may or may not see what could be a traffic signal.

Granted much of what I wrote is pertaining to areas you are not very familiar with, or it could be that OTHER driver who isn't familiar, but this is why traffic signals are standardized and need to be working.


RE: Agreed
By leexgx on 12/18/2009 5:13:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Finally, what is this "plowing through at high speed" assumption?

did not know what hit that car but it must of been at some speed to kill, if the conditions are that bad should of not been going any faster then 10-20MPH across junctions (hopefully they pressed charges to the driver that killed other person )


RE: Agreed
By omnicronx on 12/18/2009 9:19:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Granted, if you are driving through town, and visibility is so bad that you can't see a light pole, then you have no sense driving.
This is exactly why the poster above's comment is really a non factor. I've been through some bad snowstorms, and if it gets so bad that you cannot see an intersection, you probably wouldn't be able to see the lights even if they were not covered. At that point if you are crazy enough to be on the road in the first place, you should be moving very slowly, slow enough that you should be able to see any intersection. (well, unless of course you drive a hummer or something)


RE: Agreed
By omnicronx on 12/18/2009 9:11:33 AM , Rating: 4
*If I can't see it its not illegal*

While I don't think shifting the blame completely to the drivers is fair, its not like you can't see the intersection. You really have to be a moron to think it is ok to just blow by the intersection just because you can't see any lights.

For reference I live in Canada, even with normal non led stop lights, they still get covered at times in a bad storm. Accidents happen because of this, and guess which driver ends up being at fault pretty much everytime.. Yep the one that didnt treat it as a four way stop..


RE: Agreed
By majBUZZ on 12/17/2009 4:59:55 PM , Rating: 3
no quite the contrary i have been driving for 25 years, i moved from Seattle to New York. My license from Washington had expired and as a result of that i had to take the entire driver education process over which entailed 5 hours of classroom like i was a first time driver , and a 30 minute driving test, because we all know once your license expires you forget how to drive.


RE: Agreed
By bigboxes on 12/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Agreed
By lightfoot on 12/17/2009 6:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
My superiority? Living in Denver, Colorado, USA I know a little about American drivers, snow, and obscured stop lights.

But go have fun in Naples if you like.


RE: Agreed
By MamiyaOtaru on 12/17/2009 6:50:58 PM , Rating: 1
fine. you wouldn't complain about drivers in Denver though if you'd driven on the Place de l'Étoile ;)


RE: Agreed
By lightfoot on 12/17/2009 7:09:28 PM , Rating: 1
I've been to Guangzhou, China so I've seen my fair share of bad drivers. In China the markings on the roads and the colored lights are treated as mere suggestions.


RE: Agreed
By ebakke on 12/18/2009 10:38:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
treated as mere suggestions.
If even that! I recall being terrified numerous times in my taxi rides in Beijing.


RE: Agreed
By kmmatney on 12/17/2009 9:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
Live in Denver as well. For the most part, I think our snow is drier, so I haven't come across many obscured lights. If the snow is bad enough to obscure the lights, then I'm probably not out there driving, or driving very slow. They've switched to LEDs on just about all the lights near my house.


RE: Agreed
By JonnyDough on 12/18/2009 6:35:56 AM , Rating: 2
I agree too. If the temperature outside is sub zero a regular stoplight isn't going to be melting much of anything anyway. In fact, if the temperature drops suddenly as it begins to snow the heat from the light could actually end up making it stick as the light cools. The heat from the bulb would melt the initial snowflakes causing them to turn to ice and adhere better, with further snowfall sticking to the ice.

There is a simple albeit possibly costly solution to this. Temperature sensors and heating coils.


RE: Agreed
By JonnyDough on 12/18/2009 6:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder too if the right kind of coating on the lenses from Bosch or DuPont would help reduce snow sticking on a cold stoplight.


RE: Agreed
By chmilz on 12/17/2009 2:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
Have you seen the drivers out there? The second that license is in their hands, it's almost as if they forget everything they just learned.


RE: Agreed
By CyborgTMT on 12/17/2009 2:49:46 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly my thoughts, if the snow covers a speed limit sign that doesn't mean you can now drive 100mph or if a stop sign is covered up doesn't make it suddenly not apply. It's no different with a stop-light.


RE: Agreed
By Orpheus333 on 12/17/2009 4:42:37 PM , Rating: 5
Wisconsinite here. I doubt you'll be saying that when your city is without traffic lights for a week.

Just stick with the old ones. Honestly, traffic lights are not the most pressing concern of energy efficiency. Regardless of how you think people should drive, there is a reality. The reality is its a danger. Its more hassle than its worth so just keep the old ones and move along. There are a million other applications for LEDs- lets start there.


RE: Agreed
By clovell on 12/17/2009 5:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.


RE: Agreed
By Chernobyl68 on 12/17/2009 5:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
Floridian here...been there, done that, with massive power outages from hurricanes. You get used to stopping at intersections. deal with it. and you should be driving more careful in the snow anyway, right?


RE: Agreed
By lightfoot on 12/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Agreed
By lelias2k on 12/17/2009 7:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ppl will always look for an excuse instead of facing the fact that driving is not something to be taken lightly.

I mean, there's little difference between driving and carrying a gun in the sense that you can kill with either one...


RE: Agreed
By monomer on 12/17/2009 7:05:42 PM , Rating: 5
I live in Calgary, AB, Canada, and most of our lights have been changed over to LED. I must say that I really like them as they are significantly brighter and easier to see in bright sunlight than the traditional bulbs.

That said, I've never noticed an issue with snow covering the lights here. I don't believe our lights use the full shroud like the ones shown in the picture, and only have a half-shroud over the top of each light, so snow build-up isn't as likely. That said, we also get much less total snow here than the north-eastern states.


RE: Agreed
By lelias2k on 12/17/2009 7:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
I was actually going to ask that: Can't they simply remove the shrouds???

Seems to me that's the problem, and not the bulb...


RE: Agreed
By mindless1 on 12/17/2009 10:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
They can't remove the shrouds as those block sun, but there are a number of other solutions some of which were mentioned in the article.

One solution would be to integrate the lens and put small heating element wires in it. That "should" (if done properly) allow them to keep it a modular drop-in for standard models of enclosure, draw power from the same the light taps into so no new wiring, and use less power in total than the prior bulbs did while still keeping a relatively low maintenance (replacement) interval, though conceivably still a shorter interval than LEDs alone since it's running a little warmer.

They could also integrate temperature sensing to keep the lens at some threshold temp else the heating element turns on, perhaps 40F, but I hate to suggest making the solution too elaborate since the designers weren't even competent enough to factor for freezing temperatures/weather in such a large % of the areas the lights would be used in, they can't help but know the address they ship them to if nothing else, the snow belt is not a mystery region like the whereabouts of ships after they disappear from the Bermuda Triangle.


RE: Agreed
By Solandri on 12/18/2009 4:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
Are the shrouds really necessary? I know they were with the incandescent bulbs. Often times with the sun behind you, you couldn't even see the light. But the LEDs are bright enough that I can't recall ever having problems seeing them even in direct sunlight.

I agree with monomer. This isn't a matter of LED signals leading to accidents in winter due to snow buildup. It's a trade-off between that and incandescent signals leading to accidents because you can't see them with the sun behind you. Since the sun shines nearly every day, while winter storms capable of coating vertical surfaces with snow happen about only a few times a year, my hunch is that the LEDs have a lower overall accident rate.


RE: Agreed
By monomer on 12/18/2009 1:09:55 PM , Rating: 3
But why would they need the shrouds to go all the way around? As I mentioned above, the shrouds here are just on the top half of the light, which blocks all of the sun, but doesn't allow for snow build-up.

I really can't see a reason for the shrouds encompassing the entire thing. They have probably just always been designed like that, and no one bothered to change it.


RE: Agreed
By Kyanzes on 12/17/2009 2:53:12 PM , Rating: 5
Let's remain stricktly on the financial side here. As long as the state sponsored burial costs remain under the electricity bill generated by standard lights we should consider the transition to 'green lights' a success.

To be more serious, quite probably temperature-sensitive heating elements should be added.


RE: Agreed
By BZDTemp on 12/17/2009 3:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Or it is possible that a different design in the area just around the light could me snow would not build up. I may not be a 100% solution but here in Denmark we have had LED traffic lights for a couple of years with no reports of problems like this.


RE: Agreed
By Spuke on 12/17/2009 4:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I may not be a 100% solution but here in Denmark we have had LED traffic lights for a couple of years with no reports of problems like this.
Do your lights go to yellow before green?


RE: Agreed
By BZDTemp on 12/18/2009 5:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
They do (or rather it is more like orange). It is like green then yellow then red while going to green it is more red then red+yellow then green.

Some places there may be separate green arrows for turning left or right which are put directly next to the main green light. Those do not have orange or even red lights and are used to indicate it is allowed to turn (we do not allow turning at red lights unless there is an green arrow).

Here is one: http://www.dr.dk/NR/rdonlyres/AC44E441-6798-4E45-B...


RE: Agreed
By mindless1 on 12/17/2009 10:57:59 PM , Rating: 3
I hate to suggest it, but if Dailytech is not reporting on Denmark traffic accidents, do you necessarily believe you would hear about the accident? Most in the US wouldn't know about this one if it wasn't posted here, though this is the trickle-down effect, presumably DT carries it because another organization deemed it newsworthy, but we just don't hear much about ANY foreign automobile accidents in the US unless a celebrity was involved.


RE: Agreed
By BZDTemp on 12/18/2009 5:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
That is a valid question.

Of course I can not say with absolute certainty that I would know if snow covered traffic lights was an issue here in Denmark. But there is a motorist organization which I'm a member of that I am pretty sure would have picked up on this (as they follow pretty much any even minor issues).


RE: Agreed
By Aeonic on 12/18/2009 5:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
The other thing is, are there more accidents with the LED's versus those caused by normal lights burning out?

Probably not enough data to tell, but I've seen my share of burned out lights here in Baltimore over the years.

On this particular accident, with what little data we have, I blame the driver. If conditions are terrible, everyone should be going slow. If they weren't, then you just don't plow through an intersection with a dead light. My money is on the driver not paying attention.

One final half-joke idea, make the salt trucks spray a saltwater solution up in the air as they pass under lights. Hehe :)


RE: Agreed
By Aeonic on 12/18/2009 5:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Hrm, hate to reply to myself but just read another reply here that made a lot of sense - only one side might be blocked, and the other side maybe had green. Seems more like the light's fault there.


RE: Agreed
By MrBlastman on 12/17/2009 2:55:25 PM , Rating: 3
You are assuming that the 50% of the population that is below average in intelligence doesn't exist. The way people drive around here, I'd almost argue that 65% or more of the population is below average. Heck, I hate to admit this but I have a cousin (who is actually pretty bright) who can not pass the written part of his learners permit (and he has tried multiple times).

Also, what if it is dark out? What if it is snowing real hard, gusting winds and the light is covered? You're not going to know it is covered until you get close, and given the average tendency for drivers to not drive safely, I'm not willing to hope that they are obeying basic principles.

No, in this case, I think it is worth the few extra dollars it costs to install a heating or de-icing unit into all of these traffic lights. One thing I have learned by driving over the years--never, ever trust another car on the road.


RE: Agreed
By MadMan007 on 12/17/2009 2:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
65% or more are below average?? Come again? :D


RE: Agreed
By killerroach on 12/17/2009 3:04:48 PM , Rating: 5
Depending on the distribution, that's possible... "average" doesn't necessarily mean "median", and you can't assume a symmetric distribution all the time...


RE: Agreed
By PlasmaBomb on 12/17/2009 3:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you are comparing the local population to the national average it is possible...

You also need to factor in the "I'm a great driver" mentality and the "I'm safe inside my steel box" correction factor... after which you will find that 95% of drivers are of below average intelligence. Common sense is a frickin' super power...


RE: Agreed
By Autisticgramma on 12/21/2009 1:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
I can tell you from my own history.

Put people in a metal box they're playing bumper cars while on cell phones.

Put that same bad driver on 2 wheels and no wind shield, doors or a seat belt, the difference is striking, well for most people.

P.s. Kevlar stops bullets not broken motorcycle riders. The point is not to crash, not to think your gonna look pretty after you crash cause you bought expensive gloves.


RE: Agreed
By Calin on 12/17/2009 3:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you can have one Einstein, and 10 normal people, and you would have 10 people below average.


RE: Agreed
By Ammohunt on 12/17/2009 2:54:43 PM , Rating: 5
so if the snow blows in from the north obscuring the northern exposed stop lights yet the south, west and east stops lights are still visable how does the 4 way stop work again? bad driving is an excuse for a less than obvious design flaw.


RE: Agreed
By Smartless on 12/17/2009 3:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, quite frankly we as engineers assume we are smarter than most people. Traffic engineers still haven't figured out a lot such as dilemma zones for yellow lights and such.

So, why can't they put a piece of glass or fine mesh to prevent the snow from getting in? Forgive my stupid question since we don't get much snow in Hawaii.


RE: Agreed
By Iaiken on 12/17/2009 4:49:54 PM , Rating: 3
Not really a stupid question... the problem is that there are a wide variety of snows to be considered:

- Freezing rain (rain that freezes on contact with sub-zero surfaces)
- Sleet (wet snow)
- Graupel (pelets)
- Granular(broken flakes)
- Flakes

In most colder climes the only thing that would be stopped by a fine mesh would be Graupel. The rest of them are either wet enough to go through it and freeze it solid, or delicate enough that they simply clog it up and white it out.

Sleet and freezing rain will simply stick to most glass or acrylic casings in the same way that it sticks to even vertical window pains and the side windows of cars. It would only serve to stop the most heavily frozen precipitation from obscuring the light.

So as you can see, there is really no perfect solution outside of exotic materials to prevent it from sticking or using a heat source to melt it.


RE: Agreed
By superkdogg on 12/18/2009 5:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree about elegant solutions. I complement you on your breakdown of snow types, but there's really only two types that need to be included: opaque and non-opaque.

It's not nearly as bad a problem if it diffuses or dims the light for the most part. A red glow is all the incandecents used to give off when they were covered in precipitation too-that would be the status quo.

The issue here is that opaque snow (flakes and granular from your vernacular) build up inches of accumulation. A different shape or configuration of glare guard would probably solve 90% or more of this. A clear guard that creates an angle that would let gravity keep the snow from sticking in any significant amount would probably work. That would be easiest to implement with all horizontal arrangements because vertically would create ledges or a really large guard.


RE: Agreed
By AyashiKaibutsu on 12/22/2009 2:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
Treat it as an intersection with one stop sign? Really shouldn't take much to come up with that...


RE: Agreed
By 7Horatio7 on 12/17/2009 3:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
Except that snow rarely covers or melts evenly. It's easy to imagine an obscured light facing in one direction that a driver stops at, then proceeds. From a crossing direction another driver may have a plainly green light and not stop.

Clearly a hot (or heated) light is better during snow. Drivers can, and should, be cautious, but that's only part of the story.


RE: Agreed
By Lazarus Dark on 12/17/2009 6:54:42 PM , Rating: 3
LOOK AT THE POST ABOVE.

I think this is where the biggest danger lies. In a blackout, ALL of the lights are out and everyone learns to treat it like a stoplight. But with snow, what if only the lights on one side are obscured. The people on that side may stop, but they may not be able to see the other lights. They stop, look, then go, but a car from another direction is cruising toward a green light. The car moves into the intersection but the car with the green light can't stop in time due to the snowy/icy street. Bam. Were either of them bad drivers? No. This is a serious design flaw and needs to be addressed asap. I'm for the temperature sensitive heating elements, it sounds doable and would only decrease the efficiency during freezing temperatures, still saving money the rest of the time.


RE: Agreed
By lelias2k on 12/17/2009 8:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
Another reason to remove the shroud. This way people on the intersection can see if the light on the crossing is visible or not.

With the shroud, not only it helps obstructing the light, but it also blocks side visibility.


RE: Agreed
By mindless1 on 12/17/2009 11:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
You must be kidding if you think people who can't see the light dead ahead of them, are going to crane their necks to the side to figure out in a split second if they are going to stop on snow and ice once they are far enough into an intersection to see the side of the lights for the other directions.

You aren't SUPPOSED to be able to see lights for other directions, think about it. If it is dark and the only light you can see is a green one but it's green for the other direction you wouldn't be slowing down like you should, plus the shroud reflects some of the light that would escape upwards, down towards the street, plus the shroud blocks some of the snow and rain from landing on the light, plus the shroud keeps what little warmth there is radiated from the bulb, or less so but still a little from the LEDs which are not 0 energy consumers from being moved away by convection currents traveling upward as quickly, plus the shroud keeps sunlight from blocking them.

Removing the shroud is the wrong option. Placing an end cap on it "might" be closer to a solution.


RE: Agreed
By sinful on 12/18/2009 8:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except that snow rarely covers or melts evenly. It's easy to imagine an obscured light facing in one direction that a driver stops at, then proceeds. From a crossing direction another driver may have a plainly green light and not stop.


A good point, but you've overlooked a flaw:
"that a driver stops at, then proceeds"
You completely forgot the part where you LOOK TO SEE THAT THE INTERSECTION IS CLEAR.

Just because you've stopped does not mean you automatically get the right of way.

I know this is a radical concept, but if you see a vehicle FLYING TOWARDS THE INTERSECTION UNABLE TO STOP IN TIME, you *yield* to them.

Oh, and consider the reason you stopped - BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T SEE THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND ARE UNSURE IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PROCEED.

Your scenario would only make sense if the driver not only missed the traffic light, but missed the entire fact that there were lights *at all*.
Which is an entirely different problem...


RE: Agreed
By clovell on 12/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Agreed
By ZachDontScare on 12/17/2009 3:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've got to agree with the engineer here. No matter how much the new design sucks with regards to removing snow, you should still obey basic principles you learn in driver's ed.

I'm sure that thought will be very comforting if a loved one of yours is ever killed through no fault of their own by a driver who didnt stop because he didnt see the red light, or simply didnt see any traffic light at all, because it was covered in snow.

If everyone followed the rules, yes, I'm sure traffic fatalities would be much lower. But unfortunately, not everyone does, and the people who pay often arent the ones who are driving poorly.


RE: Agreed
By lightfoot on 12/17/2009 6:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
If the person at fault actually suffered a proportional penalty for their mistake that would reduce the number of traffic fatalities. Unfortunately it is always the person in the smaller vehicle who pays the penalty regardless of who was at fault. The end result is a bunch of idiot drivers driving larger and larger vehicles because they would much prefer the reckless driving charge than the hospital bills or inconvenience of having to drive safely.


RE: Agreed
By Reclaimer77 on 12/17/2009 4:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
With this logic, why even have lights at all ? Let's just treat every intersection as a 4 way stop and do away with lights all-together.

Typical engineer. Instead of admitting they didn't think about LED lights freezing over, he blames the very people they are supposed to be serving.


RE: Agreed
By Chernobyl68 on 12/17/2009 6:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
Roundabouts FTW!


RE: Agreed
By rcc on 12/17/2009 6:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
works for me.... except, the bastages are putting flippin' lights on the roundabouts too.


RE: Agreed
By mindless1 on 12/17/2009 11:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
He's probably trying to curb liability, since both the city/state/whoever picked the lights, as well as the manufacturer that sold them for use in the region, have some liability for any accidents that result.

So the engineer was pretty dumb it seems, but the lights were pitched as suitable replacements, so either there was a spec that they can't be used below n.n temperature and it was ignored, or there wasn't.


RE: Agreed
By UNHchabo on 12/17/2009 4:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
One big problem with that; when it's dark and snowy, you may not even realize there's a light that's normally on at that intersection. Imagine the average rural 4-way intersection, with no stop lights, and no stop signs. Drivers coming from either direction may not even see the cross street in the dark, so they may not realize they even have a need to be that cautious.


RE: Agreed
By nfalk on 12/17/2009 4:42:15 PM , Rating: 5
I live in Wisconsin. This was all over the news last week. They said this is the first time in the 7 years since the LED lights were put in that the lights were covered by snow. It was a perfect storm, rain turned to snow and then the wind picked up. The rain got the lights wet, then the wind and snow came which caused the snow to stick to anything wet...trees, power lines, traffic lights, stop signs... C'mon people...your making a big deal out of nothing. Maybe people should be more careful when the roads are covered with snow! I think with the money they saved they can hire some people brush off the lights, if this ever happens again.


RE: Agreed
By clovell on 12/17/2009 5:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
The accidents didn't just happen in WI, pal - Chi-town caught hell too.


RE: Agreed
By mindless1 on 12/17/2009 11:22:53 PM , Rating: 3
But how safe is it to have crews out in the snowy icy street brushing off lights nobody can see?

Do you wait for an accident and only send a crew to that light, or assign crews to check the lights? How many people and vehicles does it take, what does that cost?

I'll bet it was not the first time (what is "the LED lights"???) any lights in Wisconsin were covered with snow, think about it, the area and how many lights there are and that is only one state.

What is more likely is it is only the first time that an accident was attributed to the lights being covered, with an officer that stated he didn't think the accident would happen if the lights weren't covered (partially assigning blame), that made the news headlines because there weren't other things more newsworthy.

Will they save any money if victims' families win some lawsuits? Will they save money if they have to check the lights every time a snowflake falls?

The answer is clear, the product is not suited for the purpose and they should contact the manufacturer strongly suggesting a replacement be made available pronto! (with lawyers lined up if needed).

If the cities have to break down and buy the product rather than (free?) Manufacturer replacement, if that is what it takes then that is a fundamental part of what local government is supposed to do, address the needs of the people not hope there will never be another rain, then snowy windy day.

Pictures of vertical surfaces covered with snow, ice, a mix of the two, in winter are quite common. You cannot call something that common a perfect storm with a straight face, it's likely to happen a couple times a year anywhere beneath the snow belt only far enough that temperature rises and falls above and below freezing on a regular basis which is much of northern half of the US.


RE: Agreed
By adiposity on 12/17/2009 7:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and we don't need prisons, either. Everyone should just follow the law.

-Dan


RE: Agreed
By Lerianis on 12/18/2009 3:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
They didn't teach that to me in Driver's Ed.... in fact that never came up at all.

They never said that an 'obscured light should be treated as a stop sign'.... they said that when the power is out, a light should be treated as a stop sign.... never expanded it in the slightest.

Oh, and putting heat elements in these things would NOT negate the power-savings in the slightest.... you only have to raise the temperature of the light to 38F before the snow is all melted away.


RE: Agreed
By DougF on 12/18/2009 9:06:55 AM , Rating: 2
Anybody notice the sign to the right? It too, is covered by snow, as often happens in winter. The problem is not the technology, it is drivers not obeying the rules of the road and stopping at intersections as if they were 4-way stops when the lights are either down/out/covered in snow.


RE: Agreed
By Qapa on 12/18/2009 12:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree. No matter the weather, the visibility or whatever, if you reach an intersection, either you have clear green light, or you must be careful, which can mean anything from slow down to look for other cars to making a full stop. There should never be any argument (as seen in the posters below) concerning this! It is simple safety rule - if you can't do "whatever you were thinking of doing" safely, don't do it (that way)!

But, I would additionally say that the guys responsible for saying that these "new lights" are good for being installed (govnment/city hall/...), should also be taken accountable - it wasn't properly tested!

Concerning the lights themselves, there are at least 2 simple changes that would make this a lot safer, without any other costs that negate the energy saving benefits (like the heaters, etc):

(1) - each light has a lateral and upper "cover" which covers about "90%" of the light's circumference. This is overkill and helps to sustain the snow there. Reduce it so something like 50%-60% and the snow has less to grab onto.

(2) - make the "glass" in front of the leds tilted... something like this lateral view (the "0"'s are the LEDs and the "/" is the front "glass")
------0/
-----0/
----0/
---0/
--0/
-0/
0/
This makes it even harder for the snow to grab itself to the lights.


RE: Agreed
By Moishe on 12/18/2009 1:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and No.
There will always be stupid and bad drivers.

States that deal with snow need to have another method to prevent snow build up. How about a tiny heater for each light that uses a light detector and a calendar to turn on only when it's dark/covered and only in the winter. Savings occur at all other times, and most states don't need them.


RE: Agreed
By aqwan135 on 12/20/2009 8:01:48 PM , Rating: 1
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


RE: Agreed
By aqwan135 on 12/20/2009 8:21:42 PM , Rating: 1
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


RE: Agreed
By aqwan135 on 12/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Agreed
By aqwan135 on 12/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Agreed
By Luticus on 12/22/2009 8:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
They should just install defrosters on the front of the lens with a thermometer switch so they only turn on below certain temperatures... That'll work!


Nothing wrong with heat elements
By corduroygt on 12/17/2009 2:48:30 PM , Rating: 4
Use them only in the winter, just like everyone else, the state will also have to pay extra for heat in the winter.




RE: Nothing wrong with heat elements
By lightfoot on 12/17/2009 2:52:17 PM , Rating: 5
And it seems like a dedicated heating element would still be far more efficient than relying on waste heat from a light bulb...

I don't think energy efficiency was ever a big selling point of an Easy Bake Oven.


RE: Nothing wrong with heat elements
By michal1980 on 12/17/2009 3:43:35 PM , Rating: 3
how would a dedicated heater be more efficent?

A regular bulb produces Light + heat. Nothing more.

With a dedicate heater you now make a simple system vastly more complex.

Now you have a light bulb and a heater. Already doubling the number of parts, both to buy & maintain. But then you probably dont need/want the heater to run all the time, so you have a serperate system that controls when the heater turns on and off.

You've just taken a simple one piece system, and transformed it into 3. Plus the additional wiring costs. Aditional maintance, additional spare parts, etc etc.


RE: Nothing wrong with heat elements
By corduroygt on 12/17/2009 4:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
Thankfully none of the pieces are mechanical, just electrical circuitry which is very reliable. Also the added complexity pales in comparison to the rest of the electrical stuff in the light that controls the timing of the bulbs, etc.


By corduroygt on 12/17/2009 4:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
Come to think of it, another option is to have 2 sets of lights, one with LED and another with regular lightbulbs, and the regular one would only be activated occasionally in the winter.


RE: Nothing wrong with heat elements
By Keeir on 12/17/2009 5:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
How about because even a normal lighted traffic light can be obsurced by snow.

I've lived in Penns. and Ohio. I can remember times in both states where traffic lights were more than 75% obscured. I also happen to remember times when signage such as stop signs had more than 75% snow cover as well.

Reading the articles linked, its not clear that the duration or frquency or both have increased and by what degree.

If in 7 years of operation, only 1 traffic death can be placed at the feet of this issue... well, its pretty much a non-issue

(in the same 7 years, 280,000 people died in traffic accidents, at least a good 10-20,000 in the area of the new LED traffic lights)


By lightfoot on 12/17/2009 7:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
All the parts you mention do add cost to the light, but so do the LEDs. It would be fairly simple to add all the parts you mentioned into a simple enclosure that would still fit into the standard street light form factor and would all draw power from the single fixture (meaning no rewiring required.)

The entire device could maintain the 7-year life expectancy, reduce power consumption and still solve the icing problem. Anything that reduces the frequency of needed maintenance is well worth the small marginal cost increase.


By mindless1 on 12/17/2009 11:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's called science. It's not whether you have heat, it's how much and where it is. A regular bulb produces more heat than you'd need to simply keep the front lens snow and ice free, but what heat it does produce is radiated in all directions, mostly upward not forward.

It's irrelevant if a dedicated heater makes it more complex to the extent that like anything else, it has to be as complex as it has to be to work properly in the intended environment.

However, some nichrome wire or other basic resistive, low wattage element embedded in temperature resistant plastic lenses is a quite simple, not complex solution. Heck you can buy a hair dryer for $10 and it's multiple times as complex as that and has far more nichrome wire than you'd need, a GFCI, switch, motor, etc.

You would not need to double anything you buy or maintain, plus no maintenance was half the point of LED lighting. It could simply be integrated into a modular drop in that is the bulb, front lens, with heating element in it powered off the same DC bus used to power the lights.

Regardless of whether you "probably" need or want the heater to run all the time, if people are thinking like you that "oh it's too complex", then you leave the only reasonable solution to be running it all the time.

It's still a one piece system, it's still relatively simple in comparison to any consumer electronics you own, it has LESS maintenance because they don't have to go clean the snowy ice off, it has zero spare parts.

I can't understand how you can be so totally wrong. Even car rear windows have had embedded defoggers for decades, really simple solution, cheap, effective.

How often do you have to replace your rear window because it has a defogger? Generally they only need replaced if someone physically destroys it or it's a defective design in general.


Cliff Notes version of article
By WileCoyote on 12/17/2009 3:25:24 PM , Rating: 4
LED traffic lights don't melt snow. A tech fix is already being worked on.

The End.




RE: Cliff Notes version of article
By Amiga500 on 12/18/2009 3:37:15 AM , Rating: 2
A simple transparent 3d wedge over the light will suffice as the snow will then have nowhere to gain a foothold.

If needs be, it could even be lightly heated to ensure moisture exists on the surface so there definitely can be no build up.

One other point - why was someone driving fast enough to cause a death at a traffic light juntion in the snow?

If the light had turned red before they got to the line, would they have been able to stop? Not a snowballs (pardon the pun).


RE: Cliff Notes version of article
By Lerianis on 12/18/2009 4:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
Good question there as to why was someone driving that fast to cause a death at a traffic light in the snow.... personally, I wouldn't go faster than say..... 25mph in the snow, max!
Even in an SUV!


RE: Cliff Notes version of article
By BansheeX on 12/18/2009 8:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
Presumably the enclosure is to shield the light from glare, but I don't really see why it needs to go all the way around. If they visored the top and kept the sides vertical, there wouldn't be a platform for the falling snow to rest on.


RE: Cliff Notes version of article
By Amiga500 on 12/18/2009 9:54:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm an idiot.

There is a far simpler way to this. Notice that the majority of the snow is building up only where there is a glare guard to support it (i.e. underneath it, even with a sharp gradient)

Stagger the lights (see below diagram) and have the glare guard sides vertical so the snow won't grip inside the guard.

The dots are just spaces, | & _ are glare guard and X is the light.

..._
._|X|
|X|_
..|X|

It will take a lot more snow to pile up in front of the lights then - and of course the upper surface of the glare guard can be wedge shaped to deflect snow.


Not just energy
By Strunf on 12/17/2009 5:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
By using LED they also decrease the maintenance, when workers go change the bulbs it probably costs more to go there and change them than the consumption of the bulbs for a whole year.

This problem of snow has a easy fix, you just put a flat glass from the top to the bottom covering all the lights, this way the snow has no place to fall into.




RE: Not just energy
By lightfoot on 12/17/2009 6:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
Then you have problems with glare and reflections off the smooth covering. It just creates a different problem during a different time of year.


RE: Not just energy
By Strunf on 12/18/2009 9:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
There are smooth surfaces that don't cause glare, just look to you LCD panel they let light come out yet you can't use them as mirror. I said glass but could be plastic, actually transparent plastic would be even better.


RE: Not just energy
By mindless1 on 12/18/2009 12:33:10 AM , Rating: 1
That is possible but probably most often a common myth. Those workers, do you suppose they were laid off? In most cases, no. They're still being paid to do what exactly? Are your roads substantially better maintained? No. That requires a budget allocated to it as the primary limitation.

I don't mean to single you out in particular, but the general idea is, "What significant improvements in your community can you attribute to the additional manpower made available by freeing up people who used to change light bulbs in traffic lights?"

There will have to be some real benefit, right? Either that, or your taxes go down. Did your taxes go down? Again, this is not directed at you specifically but for most people the answer is there was only a small fraction, if any real savings from switching to LED bulbs. It just gave the city a project and long term hopes of more money to play around with (waste).

While I agree a flat piece of glass, possible with an anti-stick coating, would probably be an improvement, it isn't necessarily the entire solution because freezing rain and snow will easily stick to glass. LED lights, while more efficient, do still produce a little heat, updraft convection currents that can melt even straight falling snow and when the quantity exceeds what the heat can keep frozen, it all freezes. Similar can be seen when you park a warm car in the snow, at a threshold temperature the windshield is cooled by the snow faster than it melts it.

While this situation is not an everyday occurrence, if we are going to depend on these traffic fixtures for a decade at a time it makes all the more sense to get it right before deployment, rather than after.


RE: Not just energy
By A Sucky Player on 12/18/2009 4:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I would hope that the DPW people that my city hired are capable of performing other tasks than replacing light bulbs. The whole concept of a budget is that you have a limited amount of money to accomplish a variety of things. By saving money on energy and maintenance, the city has money to perform other things, like better, more frequent maintenance of other city things.
LED stop lights offer more benefits than just cost savings. They are brighter and vastly more reliable than incandescent bulbs. In addition to the longer expected lifespan, they are also resistant to total failure due to the multiple elements involved.
This was a unfortunate accident that required many chance elements: heavy wet snow and high wind, resulting in an occluded traffic light that went unreported, during dark hours, involving two cars, one of which probably was not aware that the traffic light was there... the list goes on.
In the perfect world, all technical innovations would work the first time, and would best the previous designs in every way possible. I'm sure before reading this article, no one here worried that LEDs would not produce enough heat to melt snow. Should we abandon traffic lights and go back to mechanical traffic signs since light bulbs may burn out after a period of time? Or do we accept that potential risk for the benefit of increased visibility/safety. How much are you willing to spend to ensure that every possible accident is prevented? Do we encapsulate the entire city with a dome to ensure that there are no weather-related traffic accidents?
I think that with 10+ years of service worldwide, LED traffic lights deserve to be considered out of the "beta" stage. I think the more pressing matter here is that no one bothered to report the broken traffic light. Maybe spending money to add temperature activated heating elements to every traffic light is the way to go. Maybe the heating elements might cause other problems like damaging the LEDs. Maybe the solution is much simpler, have people, including the snow plow crews and police car patrols, report the broken traffic lights and send a guy out with a ladder and a broom. But for one failure in a particularly bad snowstorm in their entire operational history, the current designs seem to have fared quite well.


RE: Not just energy
By mindless1 on 12/19/2009 6:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
It's very simple, we replace what we have when the replacement has been properly developed to suit the environment, not when some marketing pitch suggests certain benefits without concern for the detractions.

Why is everyone so oblivious to the simple truth? It is not about "don't use LED traffic lights", it's about "don't use something defectively designed, if you want LED traffic lights pick some that are suitable and get rid of the defective ones".


Technology
By Chaca on 12/17/2009 3:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of technology - did you know that the first internal combustion engines needed to be overhauled after only 20 miles? Look how long it's been and we're still improving on it.

The only problem I see with LED lights is that people expect things to be perfect the first time around. If the naysayers had their way when the I.C.E. was getting started, we would still be on horses and wagons.




RE: Technology
By Hulk on 12/17/2009 3:59:40 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly.

Jeez there is such a panic when we go to a more energy efficient technology and there is a glitch or two. I'm sure it took a few tries with stoplights in general.

So now with LED's we have to redesign the hood to prevent snow build up, or add a heating element. Big deal. It's and easy way to improve efficiency by nearly an order of magnitude. I think it's worth a little re-engineering considering the payoff.


RE: Technology
By Spuke on 12/17/2009 5:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jeez there is such a panic when we go to a more energy efficient technology and there is a glitch or two. I'm sure it took a few tries with stoplights in general.
So, we shouldn't even bother to bring up issues? Just let it slide, right? It'll fix itself, right?


RE: Technology
By mindless1 on 12/18/2009 12:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
1) We don't NEED to go to a more energy efficient technology - damn everything else.

2) The day when we do, by all means let's do that, but until then I am so tired of all the basic fundamental infrastructures being screwed up by idiots so we can have special interest projects paid for by my tax dollars too. I am a tax paying citizen that is quite glad to pay a single-digit # of dollars a year, if that, towards properly working traffic lights in bad conditions - when they are needed most.

2) Glitches are fine - in beta testing. When it's DONE, when it is designed appropriate for the environment it's used in, then and only then should it replace the alternative, NOT for some green idea of saving power. Power is not your evil demon, it doesn't need a savior but if the day comes when it does, traffic lights are just a drop in a very large ocean of power consumers.

3) I do agree they need redesigned, that was the whole point all along, but that until they are redesigned they are not suited for purpose and should not be used. This was a colossal blunder on the part of the designer and Co. selling to the snow belt. I'd even go so far as to suggest a recall is in order, that there be a mandate that all such bulb replacements in the snow belt be seized by court order if necessary.

Then, let them decide to find and use properly designed LEDs bulbs or go back to what they had before.

The argument isn't whether saving energy is a nice idea, it's what to prioritize. Traffic lights are one of the few areas where we have real benefits from the heat while interior lighting and other larger energy consumers aren't.

If the city maintenance department has to change one more set of bulbs in the next decade till a solution in in place that is not a big deal, they've been doing it for years until now and that is one of the functions of the maintenance department.

As an aside, I was formerly employed by a county where I had regular dealings with their maintenance department, and estimate there is very little cost savings in not having bulbs changed because if you don't find some busy work for them to do they just piddle around doing nothing all day.

Not all of them of course, the way it ends up working out is there is an important project or two that a few guys are on and work well, then there are the other employees that work there because it was an easy job to get and loaf around all day (hard to get fired from unless you screw up pretty badly).


RE: Technology
By Lerianis on 12/18/2009 4:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
No, there shouldn't be a court-ordered recall, when this is happening in EXTREME CONDITIONS.

I swear, we do NOT automatically recall things just because there are problems in extreme conditions..... we do try to fix them (if the extreme conditions are likely to happen again in the foreseeable future (20 years, tops!), but not just get rid of them.

They are TRYING TO SAVE THE TAXPAYERS MONEY.... are you saying that is a BAD thing to be trying to do?.... NO! (slurring like a mentally deficient person here!)

The 'prioritization' comes with 1. Money first and 2. A VERY FEW lives lost secondary.

I hate to put it that way.... but if we were focusing on solely 'saving lives' then we wouldn't allow cars to be driven PERIOD!

Oh, and there ARE great cost saving in the POWER BILLS FOR THE LIGHTS. They were never saying that there would be savings in CREWS TO FIX THINGS ON THE ROADS, they were saying there would be cost savings by not using as much power and not having to replace the lights (which are a SEPARATE CHARGE FROM THE CREWS) as often.


Few here, if any, drive more than I do
By TheEinstein on 12/17/2009 5:39:22 PM , Rating: 5
I get about 10,000 miles a month right now. I am a semi-truck driver.

I will place blame on idiot drivers EVERY DAMNED TIME.

Let me show how I hate those drivers by showing what they do, from least annoying to most dangerous

1) When you get on an on ramp you should observe traffics flow, and adjust speed to match. If you cannot see traffic then you should accelerate to the speed limit before the end of the on ramp. 10-20 times a day a driver assumes that I will change lanes so they can get on. They do not see that I cannot. They end up slamming their brakes, going behind me, and they had a huge head start, faster acceleration, and no speed cap (I am governed to 62mph).

2) There are police, fire, medical, tow vehicles on the side almost every day for me... I see it a lot more than I ever did before... But how many people cannot get it in their head, give extra space? Hell it's the law in most states even! Not only that but when a semi-truck gives space (as required by law) these jerks will pass between the semi and the emergency services vehicle!

3) You need the coming exit, do you a. pass the semi truck, cut him off, slow down dramatically for the 25mph exit in front of him, or b. get behind the semi and slow down. Do not ask how many times this crap happens... when I lean into my air horn and blast, you should understand you have 5 seconds to live perhaps, unless you can make sure my braking distance needs are met (I guess some places must train these fools that since we have 18 wheels, we have 18 brakes, therefore we can stop on a dime, despite the 80,000 pounds of weight in forward momentum?)

4) Stopping in the right lane... and ignoring the shoulder... with not one, but two semi's being trapped by traffic, and stopping as fast as you can. I came 2 inches close at one point, leaving a trail of molten rubber on the road behind me as this fool stops dead in front of me... I kept thinking 'he will get on the shoulder for sure'. Nope, he stopped dead in the Interstate... and in front of me... Almost needed a hip replacement (him, not me) a new set of legs, new arms, new neck... ahh heck, he might have gotten his first clue however upon the start of the impact if I was not pro enough to pull off the tightest possible stop with a 79,000 pound total weight vehicle...

5) Dead stop lights mean you automatically can drive through them right? Oh is that a semi-truck going through, but I am the fast car, he is supposed to yield....... 'oh crap he is not yielding'

Another pisser to me... why do you cut in front of a semi by a few inches instead of giving him some room?

Not all drivers are idiots, but we need to threaten to remove body parts of those who are idiots who do idiot things and keep driving afterwards... I am serious, these people are a danger to themselves and others when they take to driving...




By mindless1 on 12/18/2009 12:39:00 AM , Rating: 2
Individual drivers may change, if they live long enough, but society as a whole will not. You can either accept it, drive angry or paranoid, or find work where you are exposed to fewer idiots every day.


Just take out the LED bulbs
By Oakley516 on 12/17/2009 4:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
Can't they just take out the LED bulbs and replace them with the bulbs that we used to use? They don't need to go and buy and install heater elements or all this other nonsense.

Just put the regular bulbs back in and the snow will continue to melt like it used to. And people won't die from obstructed traffice signals.




RE: Just take out the LED bulbs
By leexgx on 12/18/2009 5:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
no the LEDs are not plug in replacements the whole fitting is replaced to house the lower voltage LEDs

Drivers are the fault here in bad weather for the most part assuming they have Right of way and can drive fast throw an green light in bad weather or No light at all in bad weather (as to what most likely happened in that death)


Eerrmmm...
By ZaethDekar on 12/17/2009 5:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
So couldn't they redesign the hood to just you know, not be there? If I am thinking correctly (it is tough to do), that hood is to block the sun hitting the light so you could see it in the day, but with LED's being brighter they wouldn't need the hood, right?

Or they could just run electricity through the hood setup to heat it slightly, right?




RE: Eerrmmm...
By Kurz on 12/18/2009 10:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly!
If it doesn't work that well why not make an clear enclosure. But keep the Hood over the lights, but the enclosure will keep out the snow so it wont accumulate.

Reminds me about this issue at work.
I work at a bank, we use money counters to count our cash.
However there is a button that turns on and off the Fake bill detection. One of the tellers turned it off and didn't realized it. (Lost only 20 bucks).

Though I went into the mananual of the money counter and found you can force detection on. So the end user can't turn it off on accident.

Point is Design a solution to fix the issue.
Yes it'll cost money, but think of all the lives/money saved.


Blame The Users Not The Redesign...
By DtTall on 12/17/2009 6:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
I am 100% for people taking responsibility for their actions. Unlike many of the other comments I mean both the drivers AND the city gov. must take responsibility.

It's like doing economics on the principle that people will always make the most rational decision; the one that gives them the most gain. Good in theory, bad in practice. That's not how people work. Same for the lights. Yes, there are rules around uncontrolled intersections, but watching passively as accidents happen and people die shouting "but the law says..." doesn't get you very far.

As another user said, there are plenty of places for LED use that are not a safety hazard. Lets start there.




By Lerianis on 12/18/2009 4:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
These LED's aren't a danger except in the most extreme and extremely rare of conditions. We shouldn't just give up on them because they 'fail' in the most extreme conditions in the slightest.

This is a case of a 'learning situation' where we should say "Whoops... didn't think of that!", redesign the lights (maybe without these covers) and move on.


No one ever...is to blame...
By MonkeyPaw on 12/17/2009 4:03:03 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently, the caption on the picture says that the real problem is the many police blaming the lights for the accidents:

quote:
Some engineers blame the drivers, but many police are blaming the lights are to blame.


Ah, the blame game. ;)




Amazing
By Cybercat on 12/17/2009 5:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A picture of the LED light that obscured by snow that led to a fatal crash shows the extent its is obscured. Across the country similar accidents are occurring in snowy states. Some engineers blame the drivers, but many police are blaming the lights are to blame.
I R ENGLISH FAIL




Heaters
By n00bxqb on 12/17/2009 7:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't they install a small heater in the bottom of the light fixture that activates when it drops below freezing ?




Information
By jamesparker on 12/18/2009 6:43:04 AM , Rating: 2
Hi

Great information and the alternative, though, can be deadly. In Illinois a driver plowed through a blocked traffic light in April, hitting 34-year-old Lisa Richter who had the right of way.

http://www.bid66.com




By Zuul on 12/18/2009 10:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
Audi LED headlights had the same problem for colder climates. The problem in was a standard halogen or HID headlight heated the housing enough to melt the snow / ice on them while an LED headlamp did not. The solution was they embedded a low wattage electric heating element.

It may not be the ideal situation since we were trying to go 'green', however this would only be applicable in colder climates and arguably could still use less power than a high wattage lamp. Warmer climates would not need this of course.




Make Millions
By btc909 on 12/18/2009 3:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
Be the person who develops, designs, & manufactures traffic light heaters!




Simple Fix!
By toyotabedzrock on 12/19/2009 2:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
Take a piece of plastic and a plastic cylinder with an angled cut on one end, mount the plastic to the angled side of the cylinder and place that into the round light housing. Like this ||||/ but a little more angled down. Then in the future make sure the housing can't house snow by only using the upper part of the anti glare guards.

Also it is the drivers fault, why where they driving fast enough to kill in the snow and why didn't they notice the light was obstructed...




By Icehearted on 12/19/2009 5:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, this is just imbecilic. I completely agree about the traffic rules, and obscured or malfunctioning lights being treated as stop signs, but didn't these paid geniuses even consider this possibility? The fact that cooler LEDs will not melt snow and are therefore potentially hazardous strikes me as just common freaking sense.

Sheerly stupid, unquestionably bad decision making, and it's costing some people their lives (let's assume for a moment the possibility that the fatality may not have been the victim's fault).

I just cannot get over how idiotic this is. It's like a bad joke from a Simpson's episode. Good grief.




By Autisticgramma on 12/21/2009 1:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
This was done to reduce the energy costs of stop lights. It was a success, but now bob the traffic maintenance guy has to clean them off. This negates the cost savings, but still has an added benefit two fold.

1. "bob the traffic maintenance guy" has a job, the money is not being flushed away to a nameless, faceless corp - such as PG&E.

2. We're more aware of the small little things that we will have to think about as we deploy new technology. Go figure winter showed up this year.

Another side effect of poor planning, LOTS more energy could have been saved if they for instance turned off half of the needless streetlights. I say needless because there is no more dark, even in sub-urban places these days. Turn off half of the street lights across the board and see how much money this can save while not compromising the stop lights. And to preemptively rebut so called 'safety' issues brought up by the lack of street lights; light is not a deterrent to crime, and cars are required to have headlights.




What the hell....
By AstroGuardian on 12/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: What the hell....
By Lerianis on 12/18/2009 3:43:53 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, do the math again..... those LED lights, even with MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF THEM, use maybe 1 watt to do the same job of a 60 watt bulb..... less than 1/60th the energy of a regular bulb = MASSIVE energy savings.

You really need to be smacked over this.... either you didn't use your brain, or you are a troll.

This is NOT about political marketing, this is about trying to cut down on the immense power bills that the federal government and state governments have to pay.


RE: What the hell....
By AstroGuardian on 12/18/09, Rating: 0
By Hulk on 12/17/2009 4:41:05 PM , Rating: 5
So how is your "tried and true" Model A Ford treating you these days?

Or your "tried and true" 286 computer?

Or your "tried and true" calculator from 30 years ago?

And surely you haven't put one of them there new fangled toilets in your house when the "tried and true" outhouse has been serving ass for hundreds, if not thousands, of years?

Are you really an engineer? I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering from Rutgers University and the basic tennent of engineering is to take new innovations and ideas from science and "engineer" them to make better the lives of everybody.

So there is an oversight in these things and we kill the idea. Guess we shouldn't have gone to the moon. Or built a bridge after the first one failed, or built a skyscraper if one came down, or made a damn if one broke, or...

Oh I love those "new and fancy" LED traffic lights but they're just killers so we have to go back to tried and true and nearly 10 times more energy usage.

Sorry. I'm no hippie but this seems like a worthwhile innovation to me.


By Lerianis on 12/18/2009 3:52:15 AM , Rating: 3
And without trying things and FAILING, you idiot, we would still be in the days of STICK HAMMERS and be LIVING IN CAVES.

This isn't a case of 'failure'... this is a case of 'unforeseen consequences'.... which has a very easy fix.... add a small heater to the lights!

I swear.... if we left the world to people like you, we would still be in the dark ages.

Oh, and yes..... energy efficiency IS as important as saving lives. When it comes down to it..... hmm..... would I want to spend 100 million dollars on old fangled light bulbs and power for them to save one person's life.... HELL NO!

It's time to move on, and move to 'newer and better', period, done with, over.


By mindless1 on 12/19/2009 6:11:34 AM , Rating: 2
WRONG! Trying and failing is what is done in research and development, not subjecting the general public to a potentially unsafe situation.

There is nothing "unforeseen" about snow and ice, having to design a product that does outside, fit for the environment it is marketed to work within.

Yes there is a fix. Great! Problem is, they didn't fix it before they sold it. LED lights are an incredibly simple technology, if they can't even bother to check on the effects of weather, as if there were no such thing outside ALL YEAR LONG, they are truly sad.

You have it backwards about "we would still be in the dark", I am the one who suggests making sure something works instead of half-arsed broken products.

Energy efficiency is never as important. We've save energy if we just let people die instead of calling an ambulance or helicopter, not running hospitals, etc. Clearly you didn't think that one through.

Yes it's time to move on when there are better products. NOT just "newer" and don't ever assume "newer" is automatically "Better".

We're not talking about one life, we're talking about only one that made headlines on a tech website. What do you want to bet there have been others and will be again if these lights are not replaced?

I have never suggested we should not use LED traffic lights, only that we should never replace standard lights with them until their problems are worked out. Same a moving to any different tech, you can't just put your hands over your ears and sing la la la it's newer, you have to look at what is really important.

Energy efficiency is not important. We can easily build enough nuclear plants to handle far far more than 100X the difference a few traffic signals make. You have been duped by those who stand to gain power and profit into believing we need to save power and yet here you are wasting power posting on the internet. Massive contradiction!


By BobT on 12/17/2009 6:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
I as an engineer am a little upset that other engineers would do as the author of this article did and jump to the conclusion that the LED signal lights are in some way not equivalent to the incandescent lights that were used before.

To be honest they really aren't. They are much more reliable than incandescents. This is the primary reason they are moving to them, not the lower use of electricity but the much, much longer life. The higher reliability saves more lives than those few lost due to the lights being covered by snow/ice in the winter occasionally. Burned out incandescents have frequently resulted in auto deaths from other bad drivers that assumed that no light was a green light. Also there have been deaths of maintenance personnel replacing burned out incandescents.

I lived in the northern midwest portion of the US when I was younger (40+ years ago) and I can tell you for a fact that regular incandescent lit signal lights can be obscured by snow and ice also. Under the right storm situation with lots of wind I witnessed many signal lights being obscured along with street signs. It is mother nature imposing her will and you have to learn to live with it and if driving in these conditions engage your brain and think before simply proceeding into any intersection.

Bad research by reporters or bloggers is also something we have to live with but we don't have to accept their bad reports as the truth when it is simple to prove them wrong. Just ask any old timer in the northern midwest if they have seen blizzards obscure signs and lights and you will find out this has been happening forever.


By mindless1 on 12/17/2009 11:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
While I do agree it is beneficial that their replacement interval is so much longer, your supposition that we should tolerate LED lights that freeze up because regular bulbs freeze up (MUCH LESS OFTEN), is backwards thinking.

Yes we should use LED lights, when the manufacturers get them out of beta stage, how dumb could they be to not have done testing in real world freezing snowing etc. environments? Or were they just so greedy they didn't want to bother with the truth about a bit lower efficiency and expense of a heating element?

It probably wouldn't even be all that much less efficient in comparison to a bulb, likely a couple watt element on the front lens would be sufficient contrasted with a multi-watt LED array in every bulb housing.

Once again, it is irrelevant whether it has ever happened before, only that it happen at similar or lower frequency rather than higher. It is clearly a design flaw for any LED traffic lights sold to communities in the snow belt.

Winter isn't a once in a lifetime event. Due to this, we demand things like heaters and defrosters in cars too, even though there was a time when they didn't have them. If you accept doing without improved LED traffic lights, lead by example by never using your automobile heater or defroster in sub-freezing weather (and don't clean the ice off the windshield either, that would be equivalent to crews having to check all the traffic lights every time it snows which erases the benefits of not having to change bulbs once a year to lower maintenance costs).


By Lerianis on 12/18/2009 3:55:53 AM , Rating: 1
It's not 'stupid' to have not done that. For all you know, they might have done the testing and during the testing.... this didn't come up, because they didn't have the exact same conditions as are happening now in the real world.

When something happens in 'strange conditions'... you don't automatically change the thing in question to take into account those strange or EXTREME conditions. As another poster pointed out, these things have been in use for 7-10 years in some areas..... they aren't having problems, but then again, they aren't in the North-West and 'snow-bound states'.


By molgenit on 12/18/2009 8:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised if no one really tested the lights under winter conditions. Contrary to many beliefs a lot of thing are designed and just tested to meet their basic function. Most of the tests were probably just life expectancy and visibility in sun and fog. Sometimes people really do not think about obvious things. For example in Buffalo NY a while back they were offered some new busses as their share of a gas tax for transportation increase. Problem was some idiot in Albany got the busses from a low bidding firm that used a Japanese design. The busses were light weight (which was good for fuel economy) and lower (which could be better for passenger boarding) BUT this is Buffalo. Many storms leave several inches of snow even with the massive amounts of salt and constant plowing. The first storm came and ALL of the new busses had to be towed and stored till spring. I'm sure the busses met all of the requirements the government requested and would be fine in most parts of the state but not in Buffalo. Same here the light design could be fine in 90% of the cases but not in places where there is a lot of wet snow. In the end adding heating would add additional costs that the vast majority would not need and a sub-line would probably be far more expensive due to a smaller market.


By BobT on 12/18/2009 7:23:03 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry I didn't make my argument clear enough for you to understand. I will try again.

Yes it is true that in this specific storm the LED signal lights were covered over by snow and ice in the direction that the wind was blowing. But many other storms in past years did not cause this to happen. This situation only happens when the right combination of factors come together.

What is also true because I saw it with my own eyes is that incandescent type signal lights have suffered the same way when you get the right combination of wind, snow, and ice storm. People automatically assume because they create more heat that the snow and ice won't build up on them also and this is just not true. Yes these bulbs generate more heat than LEDs but the amount of heat they generate for the short periods of time they are on (stop and think a red light is on no more than half the time) can easily be offset by the extreme cold conditions during these unusual storms.

This is why I was upset with the author of these stories, this is nothing new or uniquely related to LED signal lights. It is not a problem that has just cropped up in the past 10 years plus that they have been using LED signal lights. It is a problem that occurs infrequently when the storm conditions are just right with both LED signal lights and incandescent signal lights.

Please scroll back up through the comments and find the one from "nfalk" and read his comments. He lives in the area where this happened. This was the first time the storm conditions had the right combination to cause this issue in 7 years. This is not something you design for if it only occurs infrequently.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki