So, really better?īut all that sh*t is just, again words, asumptions based on nothing than observations in different cases assumed comparable, which are not. I got 3k without any traffic light, and saw a guy in live getting 7k+ without either. Is it still best than no traffic lights or a roundabout? Impossible to state.Ģ) and 3) Better slowing the traffic a bit than stopping it? But, if you have lots of traffic in both directions, and sufficiently long roads, then traffic light will do better (so 3) is better than 2) ?) ![]() * This and That refers to Traffic lights:ġ) Easing "turn left" allowing to pass through the trafficĢ) Better in one-direction (north-south or east-west) main traffic intersectionsģ) Worst in "generic intersections" where there as much traffic in both directionsĤ) Have "smaller effect" but handle more traffic than roundaboutsġ) maybe true in one-direction, but every car turning left will then be back home and so will make the light to switch and completely block the intersection, even for cars that want to go straight (that where not blocked by the "turn-left-through" effect). He does not have to explain anything more. He does not have to use any other words than the first sentence he wrote. Ruzen says that when there will be real proofs (mesurable, comparable, reproductible), he would believe This* and That*. ![]() Since you - and anybody - cannot compare and reproduce your observations, they remain just words. he says that he don't think so because he didn't observe This* and That* you state traffic lights are useful because you observed This* and That*
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |