Turning right on red (or left in the UK) works if there is no pedestrian traffic. In the UK and Europe that's a big NO, Pedestrians are so common it would lead to mass deaths.
I have even seen a video that looked into US states that have introduced this rule later than others and some areas where they stopped using it. Both cases were showing something like 70% increase in pedestrian deaths when you start turning right on red. If even half of that was true that is a shocking amount and makes that rule something that should not exist.
Absolutely, you usually look to the left (when turning right) to check for traffic, and when a cyclist or pedestrian wants to cross their green light from your right, you simply don't look at them. Turn right on red can make sense , but in these cases Germany for example has a green arrow at the traffic light which indicates that it's allowed here, or even better separate lights for turning lanes.
@@Bioshyn same here in CZ. If the green arrow is on it means the pedestrians have red and the lane I will be entering is free. So the situation is not asking me to look in two directions at the same time.
That's right. Many cities are becoming more friendly for bicycles and pedestrians. So, it would be even more difficult to turn right at red. And the green arrow light is just a traffic light for lanes that are for cars to turn to one side. Left and right arrows. But some traffic lights in Germany have the right arrow sign (not a light) that allows to turn right at a red light after stopping.
In Europe you can get the blinking amber for cars and green for pedestrians. That means the road traffic can continue but is forced to stop and yield to pedestrians crossing the road. It is fairly common. Although I have to admit that in some occassions it can lead to potentially dangerous situations.
Turning right by red would be far too dangerous in Europe in most cases because of crossing pedestrians and cyclists. Of course, all car maniacs will vehemently disagree with me now, but the numbers don't lie.
I don't know where in Europe you live, but here in Czech Republic, when you have green light as pederstrian, cars from some other direction have also green, so they don't go on red, they just have green, which is the same shit as they have in US or even worse. You go on green as a pedestrian, but it feels like you are going on red light because cars are trying pass thru there. Unfortunatly, we are a car nation the same as Americans, only exceptions are bigger cities like Prague where most of native people don't have cars, but it's full of stupid cars anyway because of people who drive to Prague every day. Sometimes it makes sense to use a car for commuting, sometimes it doesn't make any sense when train will drop you in middle of city and you will safe 20 minutes of looking for parking.
Nah i’m a car ”maniac” and i definetly feel the same. I want everything to be clear, like if it’s red i should not be allowed to go over the line at all. That way the pedestrians feel as safe as possible going over the road
@@Pidalinczechia isn’t a car nation like america, not even close. Also the thing you are talking about isn’t even close to be as dangerous as is the American way, because in Czechia driver just has to pay attention to the pedestrian, while in America he has to pay attention to the cars on the other side (left in this instance) AND to the pedestrian at the same time. That’s practically impossible to be safe.
This. Plus, your light is above your line, right in front of you, so it's very easy to see which light is for your lane. When I visited the US, it took me a few seconds to figure out what light to look at, at each intersection. Occasionally, setting or rising sun might get annoying, but since LED traffic lights have come in use, they're visible in pretty much all circumstances.
Sometimes they get it wrong and you have to stop a bit before the white line in order to see the lights. There was one I used like that here in Croatia but they have now put up an extra light pole on the other side of the road.
Plenty of places around where you can't see the light as a truck driver if you're at the line. It is a terrible design flaw IMO. There really need to be a far light for them.
13:00 it's not just about knowing the language. You simply do not have time to READ stuff when you are zooming past signs in your car. This is why symbols work so well, both in video games and for traffic signs: they're all distinct, you learn them once, you then know and spot them instantly from a mile away.
In Europe, there is a line a little bit before the traffic light line, it allows drivers to see the light easily, but also create a space for bikes and motocycles to stop and start from a safe zone while being visible from other drivers 😊
Also, if the line is close to the traffic light, normally there is a smaller green/red light on the pole, so the first car, on wich the driver might have to lean over to see the light from below otherwise, can just look to the right in order to see what the color of the light is.
Here in Germany you often have the pedestrian crossing between you and the traffic light, so there's a few meters anyways, also there's a traffic light high up with an additional one lower down on the pole (i' guess around 3m height) that can be easily seen even from the lowest cars. Some areas don't have those secondaries and or spacing, mostly older infrastructure in fairly rural areas, but very often these are set up in a way, that they only turn red on demand (pedestrians only) with traffic signs for the cars. edit: I'm from mid/west germany, so i'm not really familiar with other regions
In Europe the traffic lights are located before the intersections, but at a distance that allows you to see them. But when this doesn't happen, there is allways a smaller second set of lights at the hight of the wind shield for the driver to see it clearly. At least thats what happens in the countries that I visited, like Portugal (where l'm from), Spain, France, England, Scotland, Denmark or Sweden...
@@Leenapanther I never drove in the US, but I have in Canada, where the traffic lights are basically the same as the US and I don't remember seeing the smaller side lights anywhere.
Living in Denmark (Scandinavia) being 6' 4" (195) and commute in a VW Polo I potentially could have issues seeing traffic lights through the wind shield. But traffic lights are supposed to be located before the "obstacle" and not after. "Obstacles" needing traffic lights always come with one or more low hanging traffic light visible for the foremost two to three cars and at least another traffic light above for all to see. It is like this everywhere. Having traffic lights behind the "obstacle" would make me a bit nervous; mainly because I am not accustomed and seemingly counter-intuitive.
In Sweden they are almost always both. That is both before the crossing as well as after. Specially how when its all LED, the back side of the on across the street is the front side of there light on there side.. That is not always the case, but its pretty common
12:20 It's not about language, but about distraction !!! It takes 1 sec to look and understand a few symbols, but 5+ sec to focus on and read 2 sentences ! Also the symbols are very distinguishable from much greater distance than words.
Also, as pointed out in others videos, this rule probably works well enough on perfectly perpendicular roads, but in alot of places, there may be 3 or 5 roads intersecting, so what if both roads are on your right? why would the leftmost one be allowed but not the second? What if the road is in a curve where you have zero visibility? Right on red mostly works in the US because their grid system allow it (as well as ignoring pedestrians and bicycle traffic)In general red lights are terrible, ther'es a reason they are replaced by roundabouts.
Yeah, I hate that as a pedestrian, unfortunately, most of crossings are like that now, you have green light as pedestrian, but you feel like you go on red. I would say that in bigger cities in more bussy intersections, it's mostly designed better, but in some smaller cities, you go on green and cars are trying to kill you even when you have green light.
at 22:50 the intersection light it makes sence in Europe...u stop a bit back so u have visibility and DONT forget the pedestrians..they have the space to cross the road
@@BigBoomAOTB i mean, they should be at cyberyber tech at this point with trillions they get... tbh, just send the trillions to europe and we will make ur military way better init
@alertozabeo I live in Europe but have driven a lot in the US and Canada, I'd say you are correct for public transport (except for maybe Eastern cities) . You have to take account how 'young' these countries are and how, mostly, the cities have developed and grown AFTER cars were invented, also the distances involved are much greater in the US and Canada.
Red should ALWAYS mean STOP, DON'T GO. An additional green light or full traffic light for turning right, give more options for regulating traffic, while also being more clear. As other comments mention, it's also safer for pedestrians (who a city should mainly be made for) and cyclists.
@@Arltratlo many american cant drive a car. Its mostly automatic cars. Thats nice ,if you life in a city, but drive your first 5 years manuel cars to learn it, but on the other side, you can let your car open in most us places and it didn't get stolen, cause not many people get it driven.😂
I sit in the same table group in a train with the headmaster of my university every Friday. The guy is in the highest tax bracket, I am a student, and he never thinks twice about it. I think it's good for society to casually see people in different socio-economic situations like that so that the rich don't lose touch with reality.
Very true! One of the worst aspects of a car dependent / car-centric / car supremacist country like the US is that it massively worsens differences, isolation and bubbles / echo chambers. In American suburbia, people don't mix, they are all in their cars driving from their single family home to the workplace or shopping mall. (Compared to Europe or Asia where public transit is used by everyone). The social aspect of this is terrible. And many think of public transportation as dangerous when it's actually far safer than driving. Even if it was like NYC's subway crime peak of the 1980's, it would still be far safer than driving. And because everyone drives, the public transit that exists is underutilized, then goes underfunded and underdeveloped. It's a vicious cycle. When people from all origin and all economical backgrounds mix together like in public transit, it strengthen the social fabric in the population. Thankfully, there's a push for urban revival, densification and transit development in the US. But it's still limited.
Few years ago was visiting a company with a very wealthy business partner who is a friend (good for many millions) - on the outskirts of Copenhagen. He insisted on taking the S-train (the local short distance train) - even if he could easily afford a rental car or a taxi for the 25 min ride. Just before we jump on the train he decides that he needs to get something to drink (a Cola). So we quickly stop by a small convenience store near the tracks. Were in a bit of hurry - he pays with his plantinum something-something card (never seen that card before I believe). And rush out. Turns out he forgot the card in the machine and the girl in the store shouts "your card!!" - just as we get outside. He turns around and with a dead serious face says - "Just keep it!" turns and starts fast-walking to the train. The girls face was priceless! (couple of seconds later he turns around and gets the card and apologizes for joking with her)
@@jarls5890 That's quite a joke... I don't think people *want* that kind of cards in my country. Outwards show of wealth is kind of looked down upon.
Having opportunities to mix with people that are different from you (race, religion, country of origin, income, etc) helps to get rid of the feeling of seeing them as "other".
So true! I remember during some time in Zürich, that a older man in rather old clothes rode the same tram as me. I often asked myself if he is one of the few poor people in this rich city. I opened an account at a bank on Paradeplatz and found him there in the position of a head accountant! The use of public transport makes us all equal.
I prefer having traffic lights positioned before the intersection, right at the stop line. From my perspective, this arrangement enhances safety, and it ensures a clear stopping point. I believe that more complex intersections can be effectively managed with European-style traffic lights.
I don't get the US system either. These large intersections with the traffic lights sometimes as far away as 6 lanes are wide? And you really expect people to not be running the red light constantly? In addition I think I've seen in one video that they do not use the same system to ensure traffic flow at intersections, like every right turn lane has green at the same time etc. In Europe, especially in big cities they study the flow of the traffic and program the traffic lights accordingly.
@@ileana8360 Yes this is true. Better pay somean to count cars true all day copol of days and set the light interval acorently then seting up so you can say you done something. Maiby becouse I drive only in Europe I prefer semafor at my nose not someware far away for what you almoust need binoculars 😂 and there are videos where people in US stop front of the semafor becouse they see red light even do is this red not for them!
Different road and intersection design are the key here. From a visibility point, I absolutely prefer the American system. But then we are talking about rather large and especially straight intersections. Here in Europe especially in older parts of the cities, you may have intersections at an angle. Or maybe not only four ways, but a fifth next to another one. And they are a lot smaller. In those cases a traffic light on the other side might actually be ambiguous as it might look like it is facing two of the streets. Although I have to admit, to me it seems over the last years the hold lines kept creeping closer and closer to the traffic lights while with newer, mostly larger cars, visibility in direction of the traffic lights gets worse.
I don't get the US system either. Same in Mexico. More than once I "burnt" a red light because I didn't understand it was for me, this bloody red light standing in the sky in the middle of nowhere so far away from me. There is a red light ? You stop right at the red light, a bit before so you can see when it goes green, and let the pedestrians cross the road.
The main difference between usa roads and EU roads is that american roads are designed for car driver convenience while in the eu roads are designed to be as safe as possible for society
19:35 even if it's cold, bike infrastructure is incredibly useful. I live in Northern Sweden (snow can get meters deep and it regularly goes below - 25 Celsius) and my city is still considered a "bike city". People bike in all weather, including heavy snow. That's because we have the infrastructure to support bikes and they manufacture bikes that can go even in snow without slipping. Pretty much everyone here owns a bike, and most people bike everywhere for most of the year. You even see a fair amount of people still biking in the snowy months
Great comment above! I just want to add that I live in northern Sweden as well and I have 2 sets of tyres for my bicycle, one set for summer roads and one set of studded tyres with a deeper grip pattern for snow and ice conditions.
Whenever I’ve been to the US, I’ve had a moment where I thought I was going to be run over as I crossed the road on a walk signal and a car came round the corner too fast and just stopped in time. I’ve never felt in danger like that in Europe. One of the biggest issues I think for turn-right-on-red is that it sends the signal that cars are more important than pedestrians, which is both bad for encouraging walking and subconsciously reinforces an unsafe bias in many drivers. I’m not even sure it increases traffic flow that much compared to a mini-roundabout or filter lights, which is how Europe typically handles it. If others have data, I’d love to see it.
To me the main issue is that the driver will be focusing on the LEFT to look for incoming traffic, so pedestrians and bikes crossing to their right are basically a secondary consideration. And no, in most cases a roundabout is a better solution (although that doesn't work with huge multilane stroads or past certain traffic volumes, but again those should be exceptions)
when there are 4 to 12 lanes in every direction, it takes a while to cross such junctions (even longer for pedestrians) and a complete cycle of traffic lights takes "forever". in such situations, wanting to turn right on red is understandable, but dangerous to pedestrians and bicycles coming from both sides. when there are usually only 1-3 lanes, cycles for traffic lights can be much shorter. over here in my big town, all trafficlights that i have ever seen have cycle times of a minute or less so that you rarely have to wait more than half a minute until it turns green again. thus there is not much need to have right on red, but it would be catastrophically more unsafe (for pedestrians and bicycles, which we have a lot of). having traffic lights on the opposite side also may make more sense when roads are that wide, but on narrower roads with 1 or 2 lanes, you easily can have one light each on the left and right side (cars on a third or more "middle lanes" also have no problem if they stop in time and don't drive until they are under the light). but it is much easier to see where you have to stop (at the traffic light !!! instead of somewhere on the opposite side). there also are traffic lights on straight roads (where no cars cross) to allow crossing for pedestrians, which requires to have the lights in front of the pedestrian crossing instead of behind it, and the same applies to roads that have only traffic lights (for pedestrians) on one direction so that cars from ALL directions need to obey such traffic lights that are directly behind the car crossing and in front of the pedestrian crossing (looks like in the usa, but usa drivers coming from the sides wouldn't think it applies to them).
ps: many or even most traffic lights also have a yield or rightofway sign attached to them that applies when the traffic light doesn't work (is broken or switched off during nighttime). having those signs in the distance across a dozen lanes would not work at all.
@zappow2827 Not a very good one, since it requires that pedestrians walk a longer distance and climb up and down stairs or ramps. That's particularly bad for the elderly and people with mobility issues. It is a fine solution for high usage scenarios in which adding elevators at both sides is justified; everywhere else is simply a way to tell that pedestrians and cyclists are not welcome and need to get the ** out of the road for slowing traffic with their lame walking.
US cities have existed long before cars did. They were later buldozed down to make space for cars. When you see a city full of stroads and parking lots in its center there is a good chance you could find historical photo where that same area looked like european city - tons of pedestrians, shops in every building and apartments above them. Then it was destroyed to make space for cars and their parking.
Not exactly. Some US cities have really only developed in the 20th century. And land was plentiful and cheap. Newer cities used the grid system and wide streets from the start. The grid system replaced older street patterns in some older east coast cities as well and that resulted in some demolition. But all of that was well before cars were invented. New York, for example, had it’s existing city plan drawn up in 1811. The same restructuring also happened in some European cities like Paris which redesigned it’s streets in the 1850s. In many European cities, land plots developed along often medieval street systems and the complications of ownership and the existence of very old and substantially built buildings meant the cost and upheaval of redesigning the cities wasn’t feasible.
Thank you. Finally someone said it. Cities in the US had extensive tram lines, but the lobby from Detroit caused to get rid of it and build highways sometimes running to the very center of cities. Now they realize that this is COLOSSAL STUPIDITY.
That is not really true. The fact is that most of the cities and towns are built very recently. Also, carts did exist before the car did. Roads was mostly made for carts, not pedestrians. I live in Sweden, if i look at my town 1.4km2 was built prior to WW2. The town is currently 13.5km2. To get it into perspective 0.5km2 was built the last 10 years. The village where i live was 0.01km2 before WW2, and is currently 0.7km2, that of 0.25km2 have been built the last 2½ years. To many people go to Berlin, or Paris, or Rom and imagine that is how Europe looks. It mostly don´t. Specially not in Central and Northern Europe. For instance, Paris and Stockholm have about the same urban area. En Paris there live about 10 million people inside the urban area (not counting metro area), in Stockholm there live about 2.1M people in the Urban area (not counting metro area). Typical of most Northern European citis and town having a dense core, that is really very very dense, but then just loads of suburba around it. In Stockholm they even have suburbia between the project suburbs. Downtown there are more tourist then people that actually live there. Really quite a lot more. But people that come visit pretty much never see that. Even people that live in the city as like a guest worker, might live there for 5-10 years and don´t have a clue that there exist giant suburbia areas. Sweden may be the most extreme example of this in Europe, but its very much true in Finland and also in Norway and Denmark to a sightly lower degree. Its also true in Germany, similar to Denmark. I have lived in Germany in a town that is very similar to the Swedish town i live in now. Its also true to e degree in Italy, maybe not so much in Rome, but a larger degree in say Milano. On the same token the opposite is also true to a degree.. There are towns and cities in the US with a similarly dense city core. Those are of cause mostly on the east coast. Its really more the event of railroad that spreed them out more so than cars
@@matsv201I think one theory with this is that ironically, as non northeast cities developed a lot during the time of streetcars, they made streets wider for those streetcars from the start, which then made it easier to later convert into wide streets and roads for cars to go through. Also, the streetcar allowed cities to be more spaced out, so there was less of a highly influential urban core to oppose car oriented infrastructure
@@ac1455 Most of what would become streetcars later was originaly made as local railroads. They was typically converted to streetcars first in a period between 1880 to 1900. I know my university town had local railways all around the city core with full scale (more or less) steam engine sin the 1860s. I don´t know the number of people that was run over, but it was probobly more than one. Those railroads was converted to trams around the turn of the century. It probobly was somewhat of a gradual process when the locos was replaced by tram-locos and the line was electrified with DC current. That did happen before the mainline was electrified (i know they was running electric trams at least in 1902) that was and the mainline was probobly electrified around 1912, that was fairly early, even in European terms.
In my town we removed all traffic lights and replaced them with roundabouts. It's so much faster to get across town and we have way less traffic incidents. Of course, this is not a solution that can be implemented at every intersection, but in placed where it can be, its amazing.
Roundabouts is not always the best option. I would say roundabouts should only be used on road with equal traffic on all sides. If one road have much more traffic than the road crossing, it should be made into a main road.
@@matsv201 also if there is too much traffic, roundabouts can get gridlocked. my city has one roundabout like that. during rush hour, avoid it at all costs and drive the long way around lol. it'll be many times faster.
Hi I’m from Portugal, a country that is in love with roundabouts. Once in a while I get stuck on traffic lights…and wish they’d just replace it with a roundabout. Spread the good word in the US.
In germany, a turned of traffic light blinks yellow for the sides who have to wait and all lights are off for the ones with right of way. If one is a priority road, there are also signs. The hierarchy of the signals is: police officer signaling, traffic lights, signs and if nothing else is present, it is right before left.
Although not born in Europe, I have lived/worked for between three months and six years in each of: Malmö, München, Den Haag, Cardiff, Brussel, Bilbao, and London. Unlike my six yrs living in VA, during my times in Europe, I only used my car when travelling to isolated villages, and never for daily commutes, within or between cities. Trams, trains, metros, buses, and a very occasional taxi did the job quicker, cheaper, and less stressfully.
@@Luredreier I have not lived in Norway, but first visited (Stavanger) with my school in 1962, and have since been as far north as Tronheim. København, Danmark, is also a favourite of mine.
American living in Sicily. A couple of points. Right on red wouldn't work in most cities here, as the roads are narrow and the buildings are often closer to the road, so by the time you can see the crossing traffic, your car is already half way into the lane. While that isn't always the case, it is often enough that it's simpler and less confusing to just have people wait for the green light. (Sicilians don't really acknowledge traffic laws as such. They consider them to be more like traffic suggestions here, so making them more ambiguous than they already are seems like a bad idea.) Also with the traffic lights. In many US cities, people pull their cars up over the crosswalk and way over the stop lines. If you do that here, you can't see the light, so people here don't crowd the intersection as much. It took some getting used to, since the lights aren't where I expected them to be, but the only times when they're hard to see is when you're crowding the intersection.
@johnbarelli6561: "(Sicilians don't really acknowledge traffic laws as such. They consider them to be more like traffic suggestions here, so making them more ambiguous than they already are seems like a bad idea.)" As an Italian, I can say this: FACTS!!!!😆😆😆
11 месяцев назад+5
As you say, Sicily is not known by their attachment to the rules .. hahahah
I was in Sicily last year. I enjoyed my stay there a lot, but as a pedestrian it sometimes was a bit too adventurous for my taste. Why do they even bother to put zebra stripes on pedestrian crossings if noone's gonna stop anyway? 😂 I quickly figured out how to cross them. You just start walking as long as cars are far away enough to stop / slow down. I also tried to smile at the driver so they would feel bad for killing me.
@@ZAGOR64took buses in Naples, terrifying , even the way to drive in which lane is merely a suggestion. I went to get on a bus, which had stopped in the middle lane , looked left which should have been fine and got pulled into a puddle by a pedestrian which saved my life as a car was coming up road the wrong way. I had to then go to museum dripping wet. Thanks random pedestrian, I appreciated pulling pulled into that particular pedestrian. By the way most cars in Naples are beaten up in on both sides . Never ever try to drive in Naples it is a sport that non Neapolitans could not hope to compete in .
@@dianeshelton9592 Although Naples and Sicily are two COMPLETELY different realities, they share a common rule: NO RULES are written in stones, and are up to "interpretation".Naples a bit more, though! LOL. I did visit Naples, and I did manage to drive there ONCE. It doesn't matter if you are a native Italian Driver...it does matter not if you're a master at aggressive or defensive driving....nothing and I meant NOTHING could prepare you for the insanity of Naple's drivers. Red on the light? Just f*cking GO, they scream...one way? say who? Just go man...hahaha hahaha. Pure madness! And do we wanna talk about the mopeds? Looks like those streets in Bombai or Mogadishu, where 2 or 3, sometimes even 4 people on scooters (obviously NO helmets) are wawing in and out of traffic at warp speed. Still...after you survive all that, you realize it's just controlled chaos, and how they do it.
13:20 another advantage of standard signs with symbols and specific shapes is that they can be recognized even when covered in snow, for example yield, stop, main road etc
21:50, I think his point about "if you're turning, it feels like you're going through a red light" is that _after you've turned_ you then pass the red light controlling the road that you've turned into, which if you're not used to it can be confusing. From my point of view, the US system of traffic lights on the far side of the intersection meant they kept catching me out when I would suddenly have to pull up 50 feet before the lights because I'm not used to the lights being so far beyond the stop line. You also have to remember that at most junctions in Europe, there are fewer lanes of traffic than in the US, so you haven't got to look so far to the side. There is then usually a repeater light either on the other side of the junction or at eye level for the front driver.
Because the traffic light is right next to you, you just stop a bit earlier (or stretch your head). Maybe it is safer for pedestrians, as it is uncommon to stop after the line as you won't be able to see the light.
Sometimes there's two sets of lights too, two close and two further away. Regardless, the lights are usually placed in a way where it's never gonna be a problem to see. But there are ofc places where it is a bit hard to see. But like you said, you can simple stop a tad bit earlier than the line is drawn and it's all good.
Well, that's the point. Is not uncommon in north america seeing cars stopping past the marking in the intersection, sometimes even blocking the pedestrian crossing. Moving the semaphore like in Europe would fix that issue immediately since if the drivers stop too far ahead, they simply won't be able to see the traffic light.
You can stop early but not so easily in dense city traffic. It's really difficult to stop just in time to avoid the light changing to red and to be able to see the traffic light properly.
Many cultural shocks i had with my first visit to The States, but my second visit when i drove there was just as shocking or even more than the first one. A few examples: Number one - when police want to stop you over here in the EU, they will NEVER flash their lights and/or siren behind you. They will either signal a patrol ahead who is stationary to pull you over or will overtake you, roll their passenger window down and show you a stop sign that means you must pull over where it safely to do so. Occasionally in Germany on the autobahh you can see an unmarked car that will have an electronic board in the back that says "POLIZEI. STOP". The moment we see flashing lights, that means there is an emergency vehicle behind - make way as fast as possible. Second - your attitude to sirens and lights is just unspeakable. Over here if people on the road hear a siren and/or see flashing blue or red lights, they instantly reduce speed if they are on the highway and move over to the right or if on an A or B road or in the city - completely stop at the side of the road with the hazard lights one. IF this happens at a red light, cars still move over furthest to the left and right of the road, even enter the junction slightly if they need to to make a clean lane for the emergency vehicle. In the US i saw an ambulance with sirens and lights on, that was sitting in a small traffic jam for 3 minutes like the rest of the cars and no one was even trying to move anywhere. You will NEVER see that anywhere in Europe. Three - the legendary 4-way stop sign. Here the stop sign means the vehicle should come to a complete stop and you should make sure there are no other vehicles or pedestrians in the way. If you made that as you were coming to the stop sign, the moment your car stops moving, you can roll out again. In the US a very polite policeman stopped me and explained to me that you must stay stationary for at least 3 seconds of a stop sign. Doesn't matter if there are cars or not. Guy was cool though and just let me off with a warning and wished me a safe journey. And Four and final - the lack of lane discipline. 2 lane highway or interstate (still don't know the difference), 75mph or even 85mph speed limit - people crawling at 50mph in the left lane. Completely legal to undertake them with 20-30mph speed difference in the right lane. This is just absurd. Pure evil chaos. Idk who came up with this idea, but over here in some countries you can send the video you have from your dash cam to the police and they will fine them for driving like morons.
Point 3 would also apply to Germany. You will need to full stop (like whole of Europe) and wait 3 seconds before you go again. Fines re quite big. So it is not just the USA.
In France, same as the US for the Stop sign. If you dont do so and you get stopped by the police they will remove 4 points from your driver's licence (and WE just have a total of 12 points on it) and you'll get a ticket of 135€.
"they will NEVER flash their lights" not the regular lights, but they will turn on their blue lights (w/o the siren), to grab your attention, and have a LED text with mirrored writing for you to be able to read in your rear view mirror, telling you to pull over. happened to me last year, because i forgot when my TÜV ran out.
I'm from Portugal and pretty much follow all your comments. Feels really weird when so many different aspects of going about your normal day-to-day life are actually HUGE DIFFERENCES on how life goes in the US. Suddenly you realize that making changes takes whole generations (OMG, please don't let it be that way!) but actually that's what it would take
As a lot of people have already said, turning right on red would not work very well at all in most european cities, we have way too much pedestrian and bicycle traffic here, much more than most US cities! In my experience driving in Finland and Sweden, Google maps always works just fine, I have never had any problems with it, but I can't speak on how it works in the US since I've never driven over there, and honestly, with how easy it is to get a license over there, and the lack of mandatory vehicle inspections to make sure your car is in safe to drive on the road, Im not sure I ever want too, I would not feel safe!
turn right on red is pretty common here in germany, but via green arrows. some places in my hometown even had permanent green arrows, but after some back-and-forth, i believe they intend to phase them out in favor of the green arrow traffic light additions. im sure it causes more issues than to simply not allow people to turn on red, but i think the severity is overstated, as most people do pay attention to pedestrians and they are usually slow-moving too, so cant really surprise you. the bigger issue would be bikers, because they move quickly (and arent supposed to bike across regular pedestrian traffic lights, but obviously everyone does anyway)
There are many junctions in the UK where it would work - especially ones where there is no pedestrian access at all. What could be done is to add a sign only to junctions where turning on red was allowed.
@@AHVENANIt is not a general rule in the US. Some states permit it, some don't and, in those that do, signs may prohibit it on selected junctions. If implemented in the UK, it would make more sense to put signs on the junctions where it was permitted.
About flashing traffic signals: the signs even work if the lights arent flashing, which can in germany also be the case (not only because of power outage)
The traffic light situation is to prevent cars from creeping up on the intersection. There are usually traffic lights on the side as well so the first car can look right next to him. Furthermore our intersections aren't that big so that keeps everything compact to slow people down and reduce high speed crashes on the intersections.
2:56 That is untrue. The US was built along rail lines and streetcars were common. That infrastructure was removed and significant parts of cities were buldozed for the automobile. In contrast, european settlements were almost exclusively NOT built from railway stations and were not designed for any kind of motorized traffic. Europe just made slighly less stupid carcentric policies. And a lot of the developments in Europe are rather recent changes and many european cities continue to improve public transport and bike and pedestrian friendly solutions. There is NO excuse, that the US cannot initiate similar changes. 8:48 What is so great about having different flashing lights when the traffic lights are not operating as usual? In Europe, traffic lights can be swiched of at night, when there is no traffic (or when technology fails) and they are automatically replaced by the already present roadsigns, which guaranty, that traffic is still regulated as good as possible - and not "Stop" or nothing. That requires some more signs, but the result of it is clearly better, because the buisier road can simply get the right of way (as if there had never been a traffic light) and the minor crossing road can get a yield or Stop depending on what is more appropriate at that particular intersection. EDIT: I prefer traffic signs and lights on the proximal side of the intersection (european style). The stopping points are usually placed in a way, that you can still nicely see the light and if that is not the case, there are additional lights with other placements. In some rare cases you might have to look up in a somewhat awkward angle, that is true. Why do I prefer it? Firstly, it keeps the focus of drivers close to the intersection, and that helps not notice all bikes and pedestrians. Secondly, when you approach a series of intersections, there is never any ambiguity, which one the lights refer to, especially if some are regulated by signs instead of lights. And finally, everything can be built a little smaler, when it is a little closer to the drivers at the moment, when they must be able to read it.
Have to disagree with your first statement at 2:56. He is right over half of Americans do actually live in suburbs/suburban developments. This also doesn't even take into account for people who live in "urban cities" which are actually just giant suburbs but are counted as urban because of their population and major city status. While you are correct that the US and its cities were initially built along rail lines, that is simply a different era. Cities are obviously no longer what they once were, they don't have the same populations and most definitely didn't stay the same size as they were then as they are constantly growing and changing over time. Also a majority of American cities (especially the sunbelt) saw their most of their development post ww2 and during the 50s and 60s, so I don't think its fair to say that "they were bulldozed for the car" unless we assume that the city in question stayed completely the same over a period of time (population and land area). It would be more accurate to say cities grew around the car and acclimated to them. Because cities are no longer what they once were, public transit ceases to function almost completely or is very difficult to implement. By the worlds standards they are simply too big and spread out in area for the populations they have. Unless a metropolitan region were to quite literally shrink in size and cram its population into a smaller land area or grow to have a population well past 20+ million people. public transit in will never function or be efficient in America the same way it is for the rest of the world. You could build the worlds largest public transit system in the Greater Houston area and it would have such a pathetically low ridership it would basically be meaningless as to why it was built in the first place. That's simply due to American city design, it wouldn't even matter how you built it or how much of it was built, densities are so low and walking anywhere would be a massive waste of time out of your day public transit ceases to function.
@@blackhole9961 Well, that was a long reply. So, firstly, thanks for the engagement ... 1.) Nothing that you said addressed the fact that the statement in the video about how US-Cities were built is factually wrong. 2.) Yes, there were big new developments just for the car, but that does not change the fact, that old and dense parts of US cities had that infrastructure and that it was actively removed. The description "buldozed for the car" is a far more accurate description then "built for the car" (both, of cause, would be silly as absolute statements, but when you understood that much about the built for cars phrase, I guess, that should not be anything that has to be explained). And the description "built for the car" becomes even less accurate, when it is supposed to be in contrast to european cities. By the way, the bulldozing is not done. When traffic gets worse, US cities still add lanes to allready wide roads, instead of reducing them and adding bike lanes, bus lanes or rail-systems. 3.) Sure , cities were no longer what they were at some point. The same holds true for European cities, which were built for horses and pedestrians. Car infrastructure as well as public transport were both fitted later. But there was far less buldozing for the car, more investment in the public transport system in the first place and a higer degree of "remove the car infrastructure in favor of public transport" lateron. 4.) And here it becomes interesting. Well , yes, urban sprawling makes good public transport more difficult to implement and that is one difference between the US and Europe. But that ... - does not affect public transport in dense centers at all - does not affect public transport pver long distances at all - does not mean, that those sprawls could not be easily connected to that system via park and ride (+ pedestrian and bike infrastructure) inside each suburb - does not mean, that policies against more urban sprawling in the future could not be effective (and more mass transit is one of them, because cities would become denser and could become more attractive by added green space, as soon as the obscene amount of parking requirenments would shrink) - does not take into account, that, yes, a public transport system can an should be a little overbuilt at some places to enhance connectability for the whole system (as it ist the case for most german villages for example). Even if subburbs were such an impossibe thing to connect to any public transport infrastructure as you describe it here, the fact, that the US does not built it comparably to Europe, even were it is clearly warranted. I stand with what I wrote. Europe neither replaced cars nor did it built its transport infrastructure over night nor did it start with conditions that were less favorable for the car and better for public transport. Specific difficulties would have to be addressed - as that was the case in Europe.
@@martinhuhn7813 I don't think it's correct to say that American cities are built factually wrong when the city design is mainly driven by a society/culture/ and its economics. Lets face it, Americans are very individualistic, materialistic, like big anything, and value space. Americans no longer desire to live in tenement/ apartments/ flats/ etc. Americans actively chose suburbia and still continue to choose suburban life style. Americans move out of the dense inner cities and into suburbs, which is why dense inner city neighborhoods were removed as they became old, dilapidated, and didn't grow by much in comparison to newer developments. I think it is more accurate to say that American cities were built for the car. Yes they existed before the car, but again the majority of them didn't see they major growths and development until the 50s and 60s. Dallas and Atlanta are not the same small major they once were. They grew outward and kept expanding outward, throughout the 50s and 60s. The dense downtown and uptown areas really represent a small minority of the city. European cities remained relatively dense over time mainly because they cant expand outward anymore the same way American cities do. Its simply a difference in how cities are built and expand. Europe built upwards with apartments/flats/row homes etc., while America expanded outwards with mostly single family homes and euclidean zoning simply because it has the land to. The greater Houston area is actually bigger than some European countries like North Macedonia and nearly the size of Belgium. The Houston area would even dwarf the Tokyo metropolitan area being nearly twice its size and way less dense for obvious reasons, this in despite that the Tokyo area has more people than Texas. for your 4th statement, - You are correct it doesn't affect dense centers, however American cities lack overall density and dense centers in general. - Public transit is heavily affected over long distance, its the main reason why train travel became practically obsolete to the era of the plane. Trains simply could not keep up with the speed and cost of planes. All of those train companies either went bust or switched to freight, because passenger rail was quickly falling out of business. - Again you are also correct, park and rides are available like here in the DFW area (DART). However the DART system is mostly USELESS for anyone who doesn't live right next to it and it doesn't take them to a destination they want to go. DART has a pathetically low ridership per sq mile of track for a light rail system of its size, even though theoretically it should be carrying A LOT more people. - Policies could be implemented, but thats mainly up to the culture and society of a population and what it decides it really wants. So unless Americans decided the next morning they all suddenly wanted to live a denser life style, its mostly not going to happen. - okay but why overbuild it? It would be an incredibly expensive system that hardly anyone would actually use. Even Adam Something goes over this, that even if you did built it it would be practically useless. Why create more public debt like that? Lastly it depends on the city, some cities do build them where its warranted, some don't. Europe actually did start with less favorable conditions for cars, they just still managed to implement them into their societies. European roads and streets are WAY narrower, there are more mid rise buildings which are way closer, and everything is generally way more compact. Even after WW2 when their cities were bombed to ash, they basically just rebuilt their cities as they were and slowly implemented the car over time. America on the other hand had newer cities which saw most of their development post ww2.
@@blackhole9961 You bring up stuff which I never said like: "that American cities are built factually wrong" as your very first point, and I do not see any benefit of replying to strawmen, I also see no sense in replying once again to many other of your statements. However I will point out one interesting point, which you brought up more than once in different words: "Policies could be implemented, but thats mainly up to the culture and society of a population and what it decides it really wants" In other words: The real reason, why the US cannot have a better public transport system, is, that the US supposedly continuously does not want to or at least does not want any policies which would allow that. The US continuously and actively decides against it. I believe that at least to the extent, that this reflects what you personally want. Otherwise you would not have to continuously use "not enough density" as an excuse for not having compareble public transport infrastructure at places, where the conditions are at leasst comparable or even better then in europe.
You know a fun fact: large parts of Europe were built after the advent of the automobile. We had this little "oopsie" in the 40's where there was plenty of space (and need) to build houses afterwards. The US had to bulldoze their cities on their own to make room for cars. We have our sprawling areas as well, but these were (and unfortunately are still being) built much later. But the US being built after the automobile is just a very, very lame excuse.
When he said that about northern regions in USA he wasn't talking about the state of the road. He meant that when it's really cold people aren't usually in the mood for riding bikes. Because it's cold out there. In the northest regions of Europe cold weather is more common most of the year so people are more used to it. In places like Spain where most of the time is warm people are not used to very cold weather and as I said, we're not in the mood for riding bikes.
22:31 Our traffic Lights are positioned before the intersection to allow visibility not only to the car in front but to most cars behind. We have the usual top cluster, which benefits drivers further back, but it becomes impractical for those at the front of the line. For this, we have a second cluster on the same pole, positioned at +/-eye level, to our right, that displays the same information as the ones on the top. For two-lane, left-turn intersections, we will usually have a single, eye-level traffic light to the left, to facilitate visibility.
idk about other EU countries but in Estonia, we usually have the traffic lights before and after the intersection. So the first person can look at the further one and the people behind can see the closer one. Also they are very clearly labeled and you would almost never confuse them with lights for other lanes/directions
The trafficlights on the near side of an intersection in Europe (at least everywhere I know) is mostly due to the much more densely built up areas. You are mostly used to widespread intersections with a big pole on every corner and the trafficlights hanging on some wires across. Putting a construction like that on a crossroad in the narrow streets of a 1000yo city that was builtbin medieval times simply won't work. Often you have way more complicated intersections than a simple T, with like 6 roads just meeting in a small place thatvwill barely fit two cars passing each other. So everyone knows which signal is for them the lights are right there, almost at the stopping line. Yes, you have to have a rubber neck to see them at times, but in difficult places often they put a second small set of lights down on the pole for the front driver to see. I had many american friends over that who were complaing abut the placement, and I always ask the where they would have put them. If you want to stick to one system for everywhere you don't have much choice around here...
It also prevents the drivers from moving past the stopping marking because if the do, they won't be able to see the light change. In North America, that marking seems to be completely optional, and is not uncommon seeing pedestrian dodging stopped cars while crossing the street on a semaphore.
I understand the rationale for traffic light placement in EU, but I still hate that setup after 30y of driving. When the sun is hitting directly into the traffic light and you need to use all the known yoga poses to stretch your neck to see when the light has changed, it's simply annoying. And of course, if you don't move in the milliseconds of the light change regardless if you can see it or not, the honking starts. 🥴
I’ve been wondering how the far-side traffic lights would work with a pure pedestrian crossing. Or are they at the near side in that case? They are on the near side on railroad crossings in the U.S..
@@aphextwin5712 Good point. I think pedestrian lights are placed similar in Europe and the US. Those are also normally across the street around here, though we also sometimes have additional small lights directly on the near side post at about chest hight. The pedestrian lights in Europe also do not have writing on them, but a little red man standing and a green man walking to keep it universal language wise...
Our traffic lights are only about 6 ft. high so you can see them when you're in the first spot. For the drivers further back, there are additional ones high up over the middle of the road. The reason is mainly geometry. If you don't have an American grid with only 90 degree angles, you need that. If the lights were across, you couldn't tell if the light at your 10 o'clock or your 2 o'clock is meant for you.
as someone who is over 6 foot, it'd be less than ideal if they were that low. they start at roughly 7 foot eight, generally. (document i found mentions 210/220cm).
the traffic light being right in front of you is not really an issue, mostly the light is close enough to you, that you can easily see it in your peripheral vision, or 95% of the time, there's also a sign on across from you. Being from Scandinavia myself, i applaud the attention to detail in the European road systems, at least for the northern part of Europe. Driving from Denmark to Spain or Italy, poses no real issue, even though i'm crossing through several countries, since the roadwork is largely similar and standardised. Also the safety in europe is in a league of its own compared to other parts of the world. The number of traffic incidents in europe per my understanding is much lower than in the US, largely due to EU posing several standardisations which is held to a high standard across the board. The worst country in Europe in terms of accidents, is still better than over half the states in the US sadly, and the US also has some of the worst traffic accidents per million people of any country. I think a major factor in safety across the European roads, has to do with acquiring a license. In the EU you have a set rules regarding acquiring a licence, firstly you have to take X amount of driving lessons in an actual driving school, along with X amount of theoretical lessons, and at the end you have to pass a strict theoretical exam and physical exam to test your driving skills. The amount of driving and theoretical lessons you have differes slightly from country to country, but europe has set a high minimum. In Denmark, you have to have had at least 16 driving lessons on the road with an instructor and 29 45 minutes of theory lessons at the same school to be allowed to take a theoretical exam and first, after you've passed that exam, then you can sign up for a practical exam, all with a state authorised driving instructor, which isn't from your driving school. It's those high standards for acquiring a driving license, that really nails in the general publics ability to understand and operate on the roads. Also it's illegal to hog the fast lane if you aren't overtaking in Europe, which is amazing. Even staying in the middle lane in a 3 lane highway, if you aren't overtaking is technically an offense.
In Poland, at least in 2006 when I was earning my licence you had to take 40 hours of driving lessons and if I remember correctly 8 hours of theoretical lessons before being allowed to take an exam.
Still in Denmark people often seem to forget to take the right lane, drives me crazy. The other problem is the abuse of fog light. If you can see half a km in front of you, you should turn it off. After a decade living in Denmark, I’ve never experienced a fog thick enough that there was a need to turn it on. Worst is, when people turn on the fog light in rain and try to burn my retina.
Turning right on red can be very dangerous , lol. We have greenarrow lights and signs ,but at the signs u have to stop and yield and is only used at safer crossings .
Red is red! we don't pass! But in France and elsewhere in Europe, we have an additional light flashing in orange that allows you to turn right when the configuration of the intersection allows it to be done safely. Remember that in European cities there are sidewalks with people, children crossing while you turn right (their pedestrian light is green!), and that often you don't have visibility because of the width of the streets.
I use public transportation for most things. I do live in the city, so, that probably matters. I did notice while visiting the US, that you drive everywhere, even just across the road from one shop to another, not bothering to cross the road on foot. People looked at me and my sister when we crossed it :D
the light being close makes sense in europe. traffic lights are mainly in cities and we do actually walk in europe so we need a crossing for pedestrians too. usually the crossing gives you enough space from the lights to see them. if there is a 2-3 lanes intersection you would be 15 meters from the lights.
Freezing weather doesn't stop you from biking. It just makes you go slower. I recently biked in 4 inch snow. It wasn't the most pleasant experiences, but I success reached my destination. So I'd say it's doable.
22:25You're supposed to stop before you pass the light. They're usually on poles beside the road, and lower down than ones slung across the road, so it's a lot nearer your eyeline that one the width of a multi-lane stroad away from you
1. I was in chicago around 4 weeks ago. Coming from Berlin Germany. Chicago really has pretty decent public transport for US standards but is more like on the poor end compared to most places of Europe. (Have visited 20 US states). 2. Driving in Chicago was the hell for me. Getting from Mayfair out of the city in direction Detroit took me 2 hours driving. The city was never ending... :D. 3. The turn right on red feels right in the first place in the US (And i like it) but there are reasons why we dont have it here. And they are the same why you dont have in New York City. The cross walks are packed full with people usually often plus 20 people. And when someone would try to block the cross walk while it would lead to a higher accident rate. But when almost no one is walking it is working. We have printed green right turn signs when the intersection suits to safly turns right on red like on red. 4. The traffic lights are also with a purpose on the same side as the cars on an intersection. This ensures that the car comes to a stop like 10-20 feet before the intersection. so the pedestrian crosswalk is not blocked by a car. Our european traffic is much more pedestrian friendly and this is reflected in these rules. 4. When you wan to turn left in europe/germany it is soo much easier. Almost every intersection has a short green light phase 3-5 seconds at the end of the normal green phase for left turn cars. The lights are located on the left front corner for the turning car. So you already stay in the intersection. Some kind of faster easier to understand clearence phase for left turners. Sorry for my english it is not perfect.
People really seem to underestimate how easy it is to ride a bike in snow. It's really not that hard at all. The most dangerous is 0 Celsius degrees: when it's been rainy outside and at night the puddles freeze over.
The worst part is when the snow plow have the blade a bit up off the ground. Leaves a thin layer of compact snow that looks flat and nice, but the bike tire will go through and makes it impossible to predict how to balance. Then it's easier to bike before they plowing the road, in like 10cm of snow.
hahaha I think it is because it is part of your climate and you have adapted to the snow, I am from Spain and one year, in winter it snowed 3 days in a row (grandparents had not seen that here) it was a terrible collapse for everyone, many towns incommunicado, the children did not go to school for days, power outages... many crashed cars and hospitals and health centers overloaded with people who had hurt themselves when they fell.
@@israelbaras8237 Of course exceptions are exactly that; exceptions. They're unusual and it makes sense people need time to adapt to such changes. However my point is towards those who use snow every year in their city as a reason to not build bike lanes. I have often heard people say "well here it snows a lot and you can't ride a bike when it snows, so bike lanes are useless half the year." Which is, of course, ridiculous.
_"A truly developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation"._ Edit: I still agree with this guy's particular quote, but cos I didn't he's a bad guy at the time, my bad, I will be more careful to check who the quote is from in the future.
Like North Korea :D great communism/socialism/leftist citations ? In most developed countries rich use public transportation (sure- but not to travel) -- but to get rid of the poor people in their cars blocking their way to go somewhere and to park their cars near the door without problems. All they want is a good clean habitat for them.
Too curious. Here if you drive a car people will think you lives in small and poor village out of the city. If youre rich enough to live in the city you never will drive... The familyhouse its in the same street of yours, the supermarket its two blocks away, theres a completly free hospital in every neighbourhood and the farest work place its 5 minutes in subway... so why you waste time and money with a car???
No creo que Petro sea buen ejemplo de nada. Ni creo que su objetivo sea desarrollar a Colombia. Si Colombia se volviera un país desarrollado, nadie lo votaría. Tal como dijo Hugo Chavez en Venezuela, que debían acabar con los ricos, que son sus enemigos y multiplicar a los pobres.
Traffic lights: How do you see it? Just keep your eyes open. In some places, if you are the first in line, you might have problems with the angle you'd have to look to see the overhead light but in most cases - at least where I live - you'll have additional lights on the side, where you can see them if you don't just stop on that spot, where they are hidden behind you car struture ( the metal between your windows - don't know the name ).
Biggest difference between US and Europe is vehicle condition. All of Europe has an annual vehicle inspection covering all safety aspects as well as emissions. Most of America has no such checks and there are only a few states that employ an annual "sticker" that covers a car completing a run cycle with no fault codes. As a result there are some shockingly unroadworthy, dangerous cars in the US. It would really worry me having children/loved ones on the roads in America.
I think in most EU, there is an inspection after 3 years for a new vehicle, and every 2 years after that. I'm pretty sure many US states have a similar system, some even have annually inspections.
Here in Belgium, the lights are to the right AND above or to the left. As you are generally asked to stop 5m in front of the intersection, visibility is usually not a problem as the placement of the lights depends on the layout of the intersection. Lights across the intersection would, for us, be highly confusing.
Also in Hungary. You have a light on the right (which might be for the right lane ONLY, or combined, depends if it's full light or just arrow), and you have light above the lanes. I guess it's the same for most European countries, I was never confused while driving in Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg or even Slovenia, Romania, Montenegro, Croatia, etc. I find the US way also confusing. If I turn... wait, there's a light over there, too! :)
To be honest, as a Dutchman I always hardly registered that people basically don't cycle in foreign countries. Now it's picking up in Germany and France too and that I register, but I got there by car usually. I remember missing my bicycle as a kid with my parents on foreign vacation, but never wondered where and how to cycle there.
The Netherlands are incredibly flat. Hills turn commuting into an endurance sport. I would love to cycle more but in either direction from my house is hills and you turn up at your destination a sweaty mess with jelly legs.
@@frankmitchell3594Please look up the channel NOT JUST BIKES who deals with ‘arguments’ like this. Yes, it obviously helps that the Netherlands is very flat in most places. However the USA is also flat (as I have seen myself) in most places, and even in the alps cities are generally build in the valleys between the mountains where biking is easily done. Plus we have electric bikes now, that can solve this problem. And bikes are becoming more popular all around the world, including the USA. NYC, Portland, Chicago, Washington Minneapolis and even SAN FRANCISCO all are in the top 10 for best cycling cities. (For the Americas) Who have invested heavily in new infrastructure the past decade. Cycling can be done EVERYWHERE at any time. Cold or hot weather is NOT an excuse NOT TO BIKE, as the brilliant channel NOT JUST BIKES has proven many times. Biking is done in above the arctic circle, in humid climates like Singapore or all around the equator. (As I have seen myself). Addiction to cars is the only real reason people keep on making up nonsensical arguments against cycling!
I'm from the Boston area but have been living in Belgium for almost 3 years now. With the traffic lights on your side of the intersection: it's not always like that in EU, but is most common. I think one reason is you usually stop much further back from the intersection than in the US due to larger pedestrian crossings and bicycle paths/lanes as well as giving busses more room to turn since the road are generally much more narrow. It also I think is part of the reason why the right on red in the EU isn't a great idea, you have much less visibility over the intersection area, especially with narrow streets and buildings usually right up to more narrow sidewalk. I've absolutely fallen in love with the traffic circles. They are everywhere in EU and usually when there aren't, you simply follow the rules of the road with priority vs yield based on direction/signs, stop signs are rare. It's not all roses though, as some places, especially in Belgium, have barriers that jut out into the road in residential areas that force 1-way traffic on a 2-way road. The idea I guess is to slow traffic, but I find it just causes traffic jams during rush hours and find them incredibly annoying. On the other hand, minimal car traffic and pedestrian only paths are what most residents prefer over the inconvenience of traffic, I get it. The culture of walking/cycling short distance is just amazing in the EU. I live just outside a small old city with a fairly compact center. It is faster, much faster, to take my city bike from my apartment into the city or train station than to drive. You have so much freedom on a bicycle as you can go almost anywhere and go store to store very quickly, where as with a car you either park and walk everywhere or need to constantly be moving your car. Of course public transit is amazing, so I can also take a bus basically from my front door into town or to the train station, and then get anywhere by train/bus. A car can be nice to have in Belgium, but is usually not necessary. Heck, even in most places in Switzerland and Germany, you can reach pretty much any remote hiking trail by train or bus! Try doing that in the US! The left to pass only thing is amazing out here to and just the general attitude of drivers here. On rare occasion you come across someone oblivious just cruising in the left lane, but I have yet to encounter the 'highway sheriff' attitude a lot of US drivers have, blocking traffic in the left lane and refusing to move because they are driving the speed limit and you should to! The drivers are super nice out here as well. For example, if you are approaching slower traffic while in the right lane and there is car a bit behind in the left lane, they will 95% of the time anticipate that you will want to pass and give you room to move in front of them, even slowing down if they have to. Not like the US where they will just be thinking of themselves and then if you dare put on your directional, will speed up to make sure you don't move in front of them!
I don't know about USA but in Europe if you put on your directional or are already in the left lane and show intention (purring on directional) the car being overtaken isn't allowed to speed up. In some countries fines for doing that are quite high.
In my country Portugal, you have the traffic lights up on a pole so you can see them above the cars ahead of you so they don't block it (specially because of the orange light that tells you that lights are turning from green to red, you should be aware) , but if you are the first car in the intersection, you have another set of lights at eye level, so you don't have to duck to see what light is on.
I often got strange looks when I was on public transport alone at the age of 10. Going to school in Australia. But what they didn't realise is I've been doing it since literally year one because I grew up in Europe. Also public transport is very looked down upon in Adelaide (where i live now). The bus and train are mainly seen as derro/for the poor
When you're allowed to just turn right at a traffic light we have a lane going right just before you reach the traffic light. Much easier since red still equals "STOP". Also intersections with a traffic light have markings where I live with a thick white line indicating where you need to stop. From that point you can easily see the traffic light that's applicable to you (either diagonally right or left to you, or in front of you hanging above the road).
A lot of comments already say why turning right on red is often not doable in europe. I would like to add that in germany we have a green arrow sign on traffic lights where turning right on red actually is allowed. But if the traffic light has such an addition then normally city planning already calculated the risks and gains. Normally it's mostly found at streets where there are not as much pedestrians and cyclers.
for the trafic ligth before the intersection there is 2 ligth. the big that u saw on the vidéo. High and well visible. But there is a smaler one closer to the ground that u miss. so when u are close to the ligth u don't see the big ligth, u see the smaller one.
In the Netherlands we work with a detection system (loops) for the traffic lights. not like other countries drive alternately, but where it is busy the light will turn green more quickly. and there are many more cyclists and pedestrians. So free to the right is not really an option...
Traffic lights usually have two lights : One quite high up that you can see from far away and then one much lower on the pole for car drivers etc. to see when they're stopped right next to it. You can look up any intersection with lights in Paris (and many others places) to see what I mean. Higher lights also allow truck truck drivers to see the lights, since they won't be able to see the lower ones.
In Europe, when you are the first car in front of lights, you know it's green because you hear screaming engines behind you. 😀 SPOILER ALERT There is very often extra little light down there pointed at you.
8:30 Depends on the country. If the traffic lights are off, the road with the right of way has often no flashing or light at all (i.e. the traffic light can be completely ignored), whereas the others have the flashing yellow light to signal caution and as a reminder to look for traffic signs. But it is normally also mandatory to have additional fall-back-traffic-signs in case the traffic light is off on every crossing with a traffic light. So a blinking yellow light will have either a stop-sign or a give-way-sign next to it whereas a completely dead traffic light has no meaning at all (it simply doesn't exist legally).
Here in Switzerland we don't have turning right on red, but there are dedicated turning lanes which sometimes don't have their own traffic light and you just have to yield to other traffic going the same direction. So it's basically a turn on red, but I think it's safer here because the signs and road layout and road markings communicate it more clearly.
There's the "Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals" which about half the countries in the world are signatories to and includes (almost) all Eurasia from the west coast of France to the east coast of Russia; that means you could drive over 7000 km (~4400mi) (as the crow flies) and recognise all the important road signs. US/Ca/Auz and NZ are the only "modern democracies" that aren't signatures; probably because they don't really have any/many land borders that people can drive across. I hate stop signs. They are so uncommon where I've lived that I remember where each one in my area is. The whole "first come" rule for right of way also strikes me as a recipe for accidents as I'm sure there are drivers that race to intersections at high speed then slam on the breaks to "be first". In almost all countries I've lived in continental Europe you must give way to the right unless indicated otherwise (e.g. priority roads); no ambiguity, if you hit someone coming from the right it's your fault. Yellow flashing (or failed) traffic lights mean normal rules apply, so you must yield to the right.
Hehe... loved the detail about the roundabouts, Portugal has roundabouts practically in any road where they can squeeze one, mostly with fountains, statues, or just palm trees and flowers in the middle... Often with layers, for local traffic on the outside, and large avenues traffic flow on the inside... This gets a lot of people confused.. For those who don't know how to use them properly, they often they go around several times before getting out of them :)))
O. M. G. My mind is blown! I never realised that the US has traffic lights on the far side of the intersection whereas Europe has the traffic lights on the near side. I lived and travelled in the US and the UK for 26 years and never noticed. I had a look around some US cities and Euro cities to see this in Google Street View. What I did know is that traffic lights are very often strung across roads on wires in the US which is not something you see in Europe. Side note: here in Australia the traffic lights tend to be BOTH sides.
I live near a big city in Germany. With a car it would take me an hour to get into the city centre and an additional half hour to find parking. With the train/subway right by my house it takes me 15 minutes. That's faster than taking it from the suburban areas in the big city and I pay less than half the rent. This is very common for young people like students etc. The differences to rural areas here are schocking though
Here in New Zealand our traffic system is a mixture of both American and European. Auckland, our biggest city, is essentially a mini version of Los Angeles. Very car centric with heavily congested highways, along with inadequate public transport options (relative to other similar sized cities around the world). We do have a similar system to the United States that allows left turning traffic (right turning traffic for countries that drive on the right) to avoid traffic lights at certain intersections. There will normally be a "give way" (yield) sign on these uncontrolled left only turning bays. When our traffic lights are not functioning properly, we have a flashing yellow light just like in Europe. Which instructs road users to give way to their right, and to enter the intersection with caution. Depending on the location our smaller intersections can be controlled by either stop/giveway signs or roundabouts. While our large intersections are almost always controlled by traffic lights on a grid layout similar to the United States. Our main traffic lights are placed right in front of where vehicles stop just like in Europe, though we normally will also have an addtional set of traffic lights on the other side of the intersection as well (basically a combination of both traffic light locations).
We, as a Central European, were in NZ this April, traveled from South Island to Auckland by campervan and spent 4500 km on the road. We were so pleasantly surprised how the countryside roads are so empty. The biggest shock was when we returned car in Auckland: sooo many cars, kilometers and kilometers of traffic from horizon to city centre even during weekend, especially visible after sundown from Sky Tower. From our point of view it was unnecessary: we were able to travel in Auckland by public transport easily, it was clean and reliable, only hinderance was the necessity to buy a plastic card.
@@MiroslavDrozen Our country roads are fine for the most part, it's within the major cities (mainly Auckland) where it'll get quite busy. Public transport in Auckland overall is lacking, the only real form of public transportation (with a decent network) is busses. There is very little to no light-rail/tramline network, and there are a few key areas where you can't even walk/cycle. There are lots of Californian style highways however.
The traffic light being right next to your car can sometimes be hard to see. But at least in Finland we usually have lights also in front of you at the other side of the intersection. Sometimes there are even small traffic lights in the same pole at car height paired up with the top lights. One big reason for this is that you can't see the road lines during winter. So people know to stop in front of the traffic light poles.
In Denmark we have lights next to us and across in intersections with lights and in some intersections we also have lights diagonal to the left for those cars turning left
About traffic lights in EU: if the stop sign painted on the road surface is not visible (for example covered by snow) the traffic light shows you the line where you have to stop your car when it's red. And you can sure you will see it even if you are stand next to them because they aren't so high (they are not just above lanes but on the pavement (or sidewalk)) and usually they have a pair at the other side as well. I think it is more safety.
My ex got fined for driving on the left lane on high way in Finland. This was late night, sun still up and no traffic really anywhere. We got stopped by "civilian" police car and she got fined for driving on left lane when there is no traffic nor reason to stay on it. So people to tend to go back to right lane, for that time we were just tired and it was an mistake. No harm to anyone but I bet we both remember that law forever. And this happened roughly 15 years ago.
As an American living in the Europe for the past 20 years, roundabouts are so much better. I don't remember the last time I saw an intersection with a stop sign.
Hi, I luv your vids... First: The car at 22:55 is a Peugeot 307 cc which is a hard top convertible 2nd: In Vienna you have at least 2 but in average 3 signals. One overhead, hanging in the middle of crossing, one like in the picture and a smaller one on the same pole in "car hight". So you will see the light from far on the bigger traffic lights. When standing you will see red/yellow/green on the small one on the side and the overhead. But I admit, I would like to have the english system where signals are across the road,
When you have signals across the road, it would be weird when you turn left or right and have to go through red lights (signals for drivers on the street perpendicular to yours).
Re. turning right on red. In the U.K. read left on red. A lot of traffic lights have an additional green arrow on the left of the normal set of lights. When the green arrow shows you can turn left when the main light is red.
You are right, the Chicago area really is one of the few US places rhat has something that comes close to a public transport network. I lived in northern Indiana for a few years, amd it was really useable.
Though the L's ridership is abysmal. Particularly since the 2020 pandemonium. I've looked at the numbers for Chicago's L recently and it was similar and at times even inferior to those of Rennes, a French city of only 215K proper / 465K metro area, which has a 2 line automated subway network totaling something like 15 miles of lines. The contrast was stark! The high frequency metro in Rennes moving something like twice the city's population on peak workdays. Anyway, at least Chicago has something, even if it's no longer really addressing the needs that have evolved : many that would like to take the L need to make tangential / diagonal trips, which is impossible without going all the way through the center and back, so they drive instead. The same issue is arising in NYC, to a much lesser extent, as there aren't many ways to go from Brooklyn to Queens without running through Manhattan.
I think that if you come here to Europe for a holiday, you have no problem at all with the signs along the road, you can drive away in any car since you take/like a manual car, you take every roundabout as it should be.... And you can't believe what it should be like on the European roads compared to America....... And your wife has to drag you back to the plane because you don't want to go back to America (and don't forget to visit the Skoda factory you love) 🤣🤣.....
He definately should study up a bit on the roadsigns first though, while many of them are obvious yes, not all of them are, and I have found that americans get suprisingly confused even by ones that to me are ridiculously obvious!
Turning right on red is only possible because in the USA almost no bicycle riders are part of traffic. There are also much less pedestrians because everyone is driving a car.
it does not stop car drivers left winging cyclists or ignoring them and just come out of the side road right in front of you. I had that done to me last week.
@@Mulberry2000 cyclist are vulnerable traffic participants and you in a car are not. Here in the Netherlands, probably the safest place in the world for cyclist, you as a car driver are automatically guilty if you are involved in an accident with cyclists. This way car drivers are extra careful not to hit them.
For the "turning right at red", due to the width of the road in europe (i'm french), most of them don't have severals ways, but only one way to go straight, right, or left... So, it's useless to allow to turn at red, because most of the time you will be blocked by an other car who want to go straight !!! ;) And in the case you have 2 or 3 lanes, you will have a dedicated light for the ones who turn... so...
Trafic light position is just a matter of habits ! I've lived for 2 years in the US (Illinois and California), and I found the position of the lights after the intersection disturbing at the beginning. Then you get used to it ! In terms of logics, it is not that good IMHO: what would you say if one would place red stop lights at railroad crossings on the other side of the tracks :-) ? Good point in the US the right turn on red, which is quite a smart idea. Same for the left turn on red at somes places provided you are in a one way street crossing another one way street. In France, and in in most EU countries, the lights are just positionned were you need to stop. And you can see them easily. Furthermore in France, there is a repeater signal on the same mast than the main trafic light, about 1,5 meter from the ground. Other tough points for me : the parking sign in the US, as shown in the video, that you have to read in full and understand. Sometimes, there are four of five pannels to read to know whether you may park or not ! As indicated also, numerous trafic signs in the US have written components, which are sometimes not self explanatory. Fun fact : for me "Speed limit 65" has always been "speed limit soixante-cing" (65 in French). Other differences are : in France you can pass school bus with limited speed, you can park near a fire hydrant, red flashing lights indicate a mandatory stop, and at intersections with no priority indicated (such as a stop or a give way sign) right of way is to vehicule coming from the right, etc.
8:47 In Europe when traffic lights do not work or there are no traffice lights, you go to the base rule: 'Right has the right of way'. If it is a busy crossing it will take some effort but it will be a clear and easy to understand way to continue. 17:25 In the EU almost all big cities have 'Ring roads' around the city, a multilane highway that goes both ways around the city with lots of exits to different city areas. 19:22 This is in the Netherlands (probably Amsterdam) outside the cities it is often even better. Cycling in the US seams dangerous and no fun because of your infrastructure. 22:30 The traffic light are not 'right next to you' exactly there is a stop line and the traffic lights are a little further down so you can look up or to your side and still see them without twisting your neck. (Re)watch some european car video's and check it out.
I disagree with the first point.Traffic lights have priority signs above them so in such cases the right of way can be established. The right rule applies if two roads that are perpendicular have the same "priority". In such cases the person to the right goes first.
Turning right on red is deadly for pedestrians, cyclist and other traffic users. It's criminal, the disregard the US has for any other user but the car !
In many intersections you have the traffic light both close to you AND on the other side of the intersection. But about seeing the one close to you, its usually no problem as they are placed just enough far away from the stop line so you can see them clearly to your top right.
Traffic light next to you. - "How do you see it?" - Me having a fit. You learn that in driving school: Stop early so that you can see the traffic light. Do the US-Americans learn anything before allowed to drive in public?
21:00 - there’s almost always a solid white line at the lights where you stop so you scan still see the signal / a signal the opposite side of the junction with shades to stop people on other routes mistaking it as their light.
6:50 I think I've read or heard, that UPS has a special algorithm when planning the routes to only use righthand turns and they deliver 10% faster or something in that ballpark
Many, many US cities were built from the railroad from east to west like Atlanta to Los Angeles or they were destroyed alongside the US tram system in the early 20th century for the car and roads. The myth the US never had a large railway system is down to it happening before living memory and the lack of knowledge of America's transport history.
22:30 yes, if you stop on the line you will have the lights on top and on your right side, sometimes in your left. To look at it you just lean to the front and look to where the light is.
Related to the #10, the lights are near the crosswalk, in general, you have a mark where to stop, the crosswalk and the lights, so you'll have like 3 to 5m until the pole.
Turn right on red is allowed for bicycles in The Netherlands. If we would allow it for cars, many pedestrians and bicyclist would get injured or even die. Also almost all busier crossings have separate lanes and stoplights for going straight and going right/left.
![American reacts to Posts That Prove American's Think That Only They Exist [part 3]](/img/1.gif)
Turning right on red (or left in the UK) works if there is no pedestrian traffic. In the UK and Europe that's a big NO, Pedestrians are so common it would lead to mass deaths.
I have even seen a video that looked into US states that have introduced this rule later than others and some areas where they stopped using it. Both cases were showing something like 70% increase in pedestrian deaths when you start turning right on red. If even half of that was true that is a shocking amount and makes that rule something that should not exist.
Absolutely, you usually look to the left (when turning right) to check for traffic, and when a cyclist or pedestrian wants to cross their green light from your right, you simply don't look at them.
Turn right on red can make sense , but in these cases Germany for example has a green arrow at the traffic light which indicates that it's allowed here, or even better separate lights for turning lanes.
@@Bioshyn same here in CZ. If the green arrow is on it means the pedestrians have red and the lane I will be entering is free. So the situation is not asking me to look in two directions at the same time.
That's right. Many cities are becoming more friendly for bicycles and pedestrians. So, it would be even more difficult to turn right at red.
And the green arrow light is just a traffic light for lanes that are for cars to turn to one side. Left and right arrows.
But some traffic lights in Germany have the right arrow sign (not a light) that allows to turn right at a red light after stopping.
In Europe you can get the blinking amber for cars and green for pedestrians. That means the road traffic can continue but is forced to stop and yield to pedestrians crossing the road. It is fairly common.
Although I have to admit that in some occassions it can lead to potentially dangerous situations.
Turning right by red would be far too dangerous in Europe in most cases because of crossing pedestrians and cyclists.
Of course, all car maniacs will vehemently disagree with me now, but the numbers don't lie.
I don't know where in Europe you live, but here in Czech Republic, when you have green light as pederstrian, cars from some other direction have also green, so they don't go on red, they just have green, which is the same shit as they have in US or even worse. You go on green as a pedestrian, but it feels like you are going on red light because cars are trying pass thru there. Unfortunatly, we are a car nation the same as Americans, only exceptions are bigger cities like Prague where most of native people don't have cars, but it's full of stupid cars anyway because of people who drive to Prague every day. Sometimes it makes sense to use a car for commuting, sometimes it doesn't make any sense when train will drop you in middle of city and you will safe 20 minutes of looking for parking.
@@Pidalin This makes no sense. Everywhere else has filter lanes and pedestrians don't cross until it's their part of the traffic cycle.
Nah i’m a car ”maniac” and i definetly feel the same. I want everything to be clear, like if it’s red i should not be allowed to go over the line at all. That way the pedestrians feel as safe as possible going over the road
@@Pidalinwell here in Sweden if a pedestrian have green light, every car that could go over that road has a red light
@@Pidalinczechia isn’t a car nation like america, not even close.
Also the thing you are talking about isn’t even close to be as dangerous as is the American way, because in Czechia driver just has to pay attention to the pedestrian, while in America he has to pay attention to the cars on the other side (left in this instance) AND to the pedestrian at the same time. That’s practically impossible to be safe.
In europe you don't stop next to the traffic light but a bit before that. It's not that difficult
Also, you can see the light before you get up to it.
This. Plus, your light is above your line, right in front of you, so it's very easy to see which light is for your lane. When I visited the US, it took me a few seconds to figure out what light to look at, at each intersection.
Occasionally, setting or rising sun might get annoying, but since LED traffic lights have come in use, they're visible in pretty much all circumstances.
In my country is a smaller trafic light on the middle of the pole for the idiots that stop to close to it and can t see the big one.
Sometimes they get it wrong and you have to stop a bit before the white line in order to see the lights. There was one I used like that here in Croatia but they have now put up an extra light pole on the other side of the road.
Plenty of places around where you can't see the light as a truck driver if you're at the line. It is a terrible design flaw IMO.
There really need to be a far light for them.
13:00 it's not just about knowing the language.
You simply do not have time to READ stuff when you are zooming past signs in your car.
This is why symbols work so well, both in video games and for traffic signs: they're all distinct, you learn them once, you then know and spot them instantly from a mile away.
Unless you have bad eyesight.
Then you shouldn't be able to drive tho.. @@gerardflynn7382
@@gerardflynn7382 you need to have decent enough eyesight to drive a car...
@@Oliverii or use glasses 🥸🥸
@@CathrineHauge say that to first person, not me. Lmao
In Europe, there is a line a little bit before the traffic light line, it allows drivers to see the light easily, but also create a space for bikes and motocycles to stop and start from a safe zone while being visible from other drivers 😊
Also, if the line is close to the traffic light, normally there is a smaller green/red light on the pole, so the first car, on wich the driver might have to lean over to see the light from below otherwise, can just look to the right in order to see what the color of the light is.
You can also have in some case a traffic light on both side.
In Belgium is common.
Here in Germany you often have the pedestrian crossing between you and the traffic light, so there's a few meters anyways, also there's a traffic light high up with an additional one lower down on the pole (i' guess around 3m height) that can be easily seen even from the lowest cars. Some areas don't have those secondaries and or spacing, mostly older infrastructure in fairly rural areas, but very often these are set up in a way, that they only turn red on demand (pedestrians only) with traffic signs for the cars.
edit: I'm from mid/west germany, so i'm not really familiar with other regions
Not in Spain. You stop at the light and they only put one light, not one opposite you like in other European countries.
In Europe the traffic lights are located before the intersections, but at a distance that allows you to see them. But when this doesn't happen, there is allways a smaller second set of lights at the hight of the wind shield for the driver to see it clearly. At least thats what happens in the countries that I visited, like Portugal (where l'm from), Spain, France, England, Scotland, Denmark or Sweden...
Does that mean in the US they only have one light (instead of one above and one to the side)?
@@Leenapanther I never drove in the US, but I have in Canada, where the traffic lights are basically the same as the US and I don't remember seeing the smaller side lights anywhere.
Living in Denmark (Scandinavia) being 6' 4" (195) and commute in a VW Polo I potentially could have issues seeing traffic lights through the wind shield. But traffic lights are supposed to be located before the "obstacle" and not after. "Obstacles" needing traffic lights always come with one or more low hanging traffic light visible for the foremost two to three cars and at least another traffic light above for all to see. It is like this everywhere. Having traffic lights behind the "obstacle" would make me a bit nervous; mainly because I am not accustomed and seemingly counter-intuitive.
In Sweden they are almost always both. That is both before the crossing as well as after. Specially how when its all LED, the back side of the on across the street is the front side of there light on there side..
That is not always the case, but its pretty common
@@matsv201 not in smaller cities, maybe in the bigger areas, There's not enough room to fit two lights in smaller cities.
12:20 It's not about language, but about distraction !!! It takes 1 sec to look and understand a few symbols, but 5+ sec to focus on and read 2 sentences ! Also the symbols are very distinguishable from much greater distance than words.
Agree, lets go back to using runes 😅 ...ps im completely serious😊
Right on red is terrible for pedestrians / bicycles, just have better road planning so you can eliminate the traffic light for going to the right
A timed traffic light with a filter lane solves ALL the issues.
Also, as pointed out in others videos, this rule probably works well enough on perfectly perpendicular roads, but in alot of places, there may be 3 or 5 roads intersecting, so what if both roads are on your right? why would the leftmost one be allowed but not the second? What if the road is in a curve where you have zero visibility?
Right on red mostly works in the US because their grid system allow it (as well as ignoring pedestrians and bicycle traffic)In general red lights are terrible, ther'es a reason they are replaced by roundabouts.
Yeah, I hate that as a pedestrian, unfortunately, most of crossings are like that now, you have green light as pedestrian, but you feel like you go on red. I would say that in bigger cities in more bussy intersections, it's mostly designed better, but in some smaller cities, you go on green and cars are trying to kill you even when you have green light.
Turning right on red is an absolutely dreadful idea - "doesn't add additional danger" ????? It most certainly does!
well in america theres almost no pedestrians nor bicycles to start with , so ....
at 22:50 the intersection light it makes sence in Europe...u stop a bit back so u have visibility and DONT forget the pedestrians..they have the space to cross the road
The more I learn about America, the more I realize that you are light years behind on everything.
Except military tech. Since thats where all the tax money goes to
@@BigBoomAOTB i mean, they should be at cyberyber tech at this point with trillions they get... tbh, just send the trillions to europe and we will make ur military way better init
@alertozabeo I live in Europe but have driven a lot in the US and Canada, I'd say you are correct for public transport (except for maybe Eastern cities) .
You have to take account how 'young' these countries are and how, mostly, the cities have developed and grown AFTER cars were invented, also the distances involved are much greater in the US and Canada.
@@BigBoomAOTB Just military spending. Ask them when they can make a hypersonic missile
@@BigBoomAOTB under 5% of their GDP though. They just don't prioritize their money well (for the benefit of the public).
Red should ALWAYS mean STOP, DON'T GO. An additional green light or full traffic light for turning right, give more options for regulating traffic, while also being more clear.
As other comments mention, it's also safer for pedestrians (who a city should mainly be made for) and cyclists.
US traffic lights are misleading.
i got told by an American that shoulder checks are dangerous!
@Arltratlo he means blind spot checks?! NO WAY. What even 😮
@@juliaw151 again, i got told to turn my head while driving is dangerous...in the USA
i am European, i do shoulder checks since i am 3 years old!
@@Arltratlo many american cant drive a car. Its mostly automatic cars. Thats nice ,if you life in a city, but drive your first 5 years manuel cars to learn it, but on the other side, you can let your car open in most us places and it didn't get stolen, cause not many people get it driven.😂
I sit in the same table group in a train with the headmaster of my university every Friday. The guy is in the highest tax bracket, I am a student, and he never thinks twice about it. I think it's good for society to casually see people in different socio-economic situations like that so that the rich don't lose touch with reality.
Very true!
One of the worst aspects of a car dependent / car-centric / car supremacist country like the US is that it massively worsens differences, isolation and bubbles / echo chambers.
In American suburbia, people don't mix, they are all in their cars driving from their single family home to the workplace or shopping mall.
(Compared to Europe or Asia where public transit is used by everyone).
The social aspect of this is terrible. And many think of public transportation as dangerous when it's actually far safer than driving.
Even if it was like NYC's subway crime peak of the 1980's, it would still be far safer than driving.
And because everyone drives, the public transit that exists is underutilized, then goes underfunded and underdeveloped.
It's a vicious cycle.
When people from all origin and all economical backgrounds mix together like in public transit, it strengthen the social fabric in the population.
Thankfully, there's a push for urban revival, densification and transit development in the US. But it's still limited.
Few years ago was visiting a company with a very wealthy business partner who is a friend (good for many millions) - on the outskirts of Copenhagen. He insisted on taking the S-train (the local short distance train) - even if he could easily afford a rental car or a taxi for the 25 min ride.
Just before we jump on the train he decides that he needs to get something to drink (a Cola). So we quickly stop by a small convenience store near the tracks. Were in a bit of hurry - he pays with his plantinum something-something card (never seen that card before I believe). And rush out. Turns out he forgot the card in the machine and the girl in the store shouts "your card!!" - just as we get outside. He turns around and with a dead serious face says - "Just keep it!" turns and starts fast-walking to the train. The girls face was priceless!
(couple of seconds later he turns around and gets the card and apologizes for joking with her)
@@jarls5890
That's quite a joke...
I don't think people *want* that kind of cards in my country.
Outwards show of wealth is kind of looked down upon.
Having opportunities to mix with people that are different from you (race, religion, country of origin, income, etc) helps to get rid of the feeling of seeing them as "other".
So true! I remember during some time in Zürich, that a older man in rather old clothes rode the same tram as me. I often asked myself if he is one of the few poor people in this rich city. I opened an account at a bank on Paradeplatz and found him there in the position of a head accountant! The use of public transport makes us all equal.
I prefer having traffic lights positioned before the intersection, right at the stop line. From my perspective, this arrangement enhances safety, and it ensures a clear stopping point. I believe that more complex intersections can be effectively managed with European-style traffic lights.
I don't get the US system either. These large intersections with the traffic lights sometimes as far away as 6 lanes are wide? And you really expect people to not be running the red light constantly?
In addition I think I've seen in one video that they do not use the same system to ensure traffic flow at intersections, like every right turn lane has green at the same time etc. In Europe, especially in big cities they study the flow of the traffic and program the traffic lights accordingly.
@@ileana8360 Yes this is true. Better pay somean to count cars true all day copol of days and set the light interval acorently then seting up so you can say you done something. Maiby becouse I drive only in Europe I prefer semafor at my nose not someware far away for what you almoust need binoculars 😂 and there are videos where people in US stop front of the semafor becouse they see red light even do is this red not for them!
Different road and intersection design are the key here. From a visibility point, I absolutely prefer the American system. But then we are talking about rather large and especially straight intersections.
Here in Europe especially in older parts of the cities, you may have intersections at an angle. Or maybe not only four ways, but a fifth next to another one. And they are a lot smaller. In those cases a traffic light on the other side might actually be ambiguous as it might look like it is facing two of the streets.
Although I have to admit, to me it seems over the last years the hold lines kept creeping closer and closer to the traffic lights while with newer, mostly larger cars, visibility in direction of the traffic lights gets worse.
You all know that there is a stop line on a road ~3meters before lights? You stop there and lights are visible from inside of a car.
I don't get the US system either. Same in Mexico. More than once I "burnt" a red light because I didn't understand it was for me, this bloody red light standing in the sky in the middle of nowhere so far away from me.
There is a red light ? You stop right at the red light, a bit before so you can see when it goes green, and let the pedestrians cross the road.
The main difference between usa roads and EU roads is that american roads are designed for car driver convenience while in the eu roads are designed to be as safe as possible for society
19:35 even if it's cold, bike infrastructure is incredibly useful. I live in Northern Sweden (snow can get meters deep and it regularly goes below - 25 Celsius) and my city is still considered a "bike city". People bike in all weather, including heavy snow. That's because we have the infrastructure to support bikes and they manufacture bikes that can go even in snow without slipping. Pretty much everyone here owns a bike, and most people bike everywhere for most of the year. You even see a fair amount of people still biking in the snowy months
Great comment above!
I just want to add that I live in northern Sweden as well and I have 2 sets of tyres for my bicycle, one set for summer roads and one set of studded tyres with a deeper grip pattern for snow and ice conditions.
Whenever I’ve been to the US, I’ve had a moment where I thought I was going to be run over as I crossed the road on a walk signal and a car came round the corner too fast and just stopped in time. I’ve never felt in danger like that in Europe.
One of the biggest issues I think for turn-right-on-red is that it sends the signal that cars are more important than pedestrians, which is both bad for encouraging walking and subconsciously reinforces an unsafe bias in many drivers.
I’m not even sure it increases traffic flow that much compared to a mini-roundabout or filter lights, which is how Europe typically handles it. If others have data, I’d love to see it.
To me the main issue is that the driver will be focusing on the LEFT to look for incoming traffic, so pedestrians and bikes crossing to their right are basically a secondary consideration.
And no, in most cases a roundabout is a better solution (although that doesn't work with huge multilane stroads or past certain traffic volumes, but again those should be exceptions)
when there are 4 to 12 lanes in every direction, it takes a while to cross such junctions (even longer for pedestrians) and a complete cycle of traffic lights takes "forever". in such situations, wanting to turn right on red is understandable, but dangerous to pedestrians and bicycles coming from both sides.
when there are usually only 1-3 lanes, cycles for traffic lights can be much shorter. over here in my big town, all trafficlights that i have ever seen have cycle times of a minute or less so that you rarely have to wait more than half a minute until it turns green again. thus there is not much need to have right on red, but it would be catastrophically more unsafe (for pedestrians and bicycles, which we have a lot of).
having traffic lights on the opposite side also may make more sense when roads are that wide, but on narrower roads with 1 or 2 lanes, you easily can have one light each on the left and right side (cars on a third or more "middle lanes" also have no problem if they stop in time and don't drive until they are under the light). but it is much easier to see where you have to stop (at the traffic light !!! instead of somewhere on the opposite side). there also are traffic lights on straight roads (where no cars cross) to allow crossing for pedestrians, which requires to have the lights in front of the pedestrian crossing instead of behind it, and the same applies to roads that have only traffic lights (for pedestrians) on one direction so that cars from ALL directions need to obey such traffic lights that are directly behind the car crossing and in front of the pedestrian crossing (looks like in the usa, but usa drivers coming from the sides wouldn't think it applies to them).
ps: many or even most traffic lights also have a yield or rightofway sign attached to them that applies when the traffic light doesn't work (is broken or switched off during nighttime). having those signs in the distance across a dozen lanes would not work at all.
@@Imman1s Footbridges would be a solution for huge multilane or big volume streets.
@zappow2827 Not a very good one, since it requires that pedestrians walk a longer distance and climb up and down stairs or ramps. That's particularly bad for the elderly and people with mobility issues. It is a fine solution for high usage scenarios in which adding elevators at both sides is justified; everywhere else is simply a way to tell that pedestrians and cyclists are not welcome and need to get the ** out of the road for slowing traffic with their lame walking.
US cities have existed long before cars did. They were later buldozed down to make space for cars. When you see a city full of stroads and parking lots in its center there is a good chance you could find historical photo where that same area looked like european city - tons of pedestrians, shops in every building and apartments above them. Then it was destroyed to make space for cars and their parking.
Not exactly. Some US cities have really only developed in the 20th century. And land was plentiful and cheap. Newer cities used the grid system and wide streets from the start. The grid system replaced older street patterns in some older east coast cities as well and that resulted in some demolition. But all of that was well before cars were invented. New York, for example, had it’s existing city plan drawn up in 1811. The same restructuring also happened in some European cities like Paris which redesigned it’s streets in the 1850s.
In many European cities, land plots developed along often medieval street systems and the complications of ownership and the existence of very old and substantially built buildings meant the cost and upheaval of redesigning the cities wasn’t feasible.
Thank you. Finally someone said it. Cities in the US had extensive tram lines, but the lobby from Detroit caused to get rid of it and build highways sometimes running to the very center of cities. Now they realize that this is COLOSSAL STUPIDITY.
That is not really true. The fact is that most of the cities and towns are built very recently. Also, carts did exist before the car did. Roads was mostly made for carts, not pedestrians.
I live in Sweden, if i look at my town 1.4km2 was built prior to WW2. The town is currently 13.5km2. To get it into perspective 0.5km2 was built the last 10 years.
The village where i live was 0.01km2 before WW2, and is currently 0.7km2, that of 0.25km2 have been built the last 2½ years.
To many people go to Berlin, or Paris, or Rom and imagine that is how Europe looks. It mostly don´t. Specially not in Central and Northern Europe.
For instance, Paris and Stockholm have about the same urban area. En Paris there live about 10 million people inside the urban area (not counting metro area), in Stockholm there live about 2.1M people in the Urban area (not counting metro area).
Typical of most Northern European citis and town having a dense core, that is really very very dense, but then just loads of suburba around it. In Stockholm they even have suburbia between the project suburbs. Downtown there are more tourist then people that actually live there. Really quite a lot more.
But people that come visit pretty much never see that. Even people that live in the city as like a guest worker, might live there for 5-10 years and don´t have a clue that there exist giant suburbia areas. Sweden may be the most extreme example of this in Europe, but its very much true in Finland and also in Norway and Denmark to a sightly lower degree. Its also true in Germany, similar to Denmark. I have lived in Germany in a town that is very similar to the Swedish town i live in now. Its also true to e degree in Italy, maybe not so much in Rome, but a larger degree in say Milano.
On the same token the opposite is also true to a degree.. There are towns and cities in the US with a similarly dense city core. Those are of cause mostly on the east coast.
Its really more the event of railroad that spreed them out more so than cars
@@matsv201I think one theory with this is that ironically, as non northeast cities developed a lot during the time of streetcars, they made streets wider for those streetcars from the start, which then made it easier to later convert into wide streets and roads for cars to go through. Also, the streetcar allowed cities to be more spaced out, so there was less of a highly influential urban core to oppose car oriented infrastructure
@@ac1455 Most of what would become streetcars later was originaly made as local railroads. They was typically converted to streetcars first in a period between 1880 to 1900.
I know my university town had local railways all around the city core with full scale (more or less) steam engine sin the 1860s. I don´t know the number of people that was run over, but it was probobly more than one. Those railroads was converted to trams around the turn of the century.
It probobly was somewhat of a gradual process when the locos was replaced by tram-locos and the line was electrified with DC current. That did happen before the mainline was electrified (i know they was running electric trams at least in 1902) that was and the mainline was probobly electrified around 1912, that was fairly early, even in European terms.
In my town we removed all traffic lights and replaced them with roundabouts. It's so much faster to get across town and we have way less traffic incidents. Of course, this is not a solution that can be implemented at every intersection, but in placed where it can be, its amazing.
Roundabouts is not always the best option. I would say roundabouts should only be used on road with equal traffic on all sides. If one road have much more traffic than the road crossing, it should be made into a main road.
Malmö has a lot of roundabouts, after the 10th in a row you start getting dizzy.
@@matsv201 also if there is too much traffic, roundabouts can get gridlocked. my city has one roundabout like that. during rush hour, avoid it at all costs and drive the long way around lol. it'll be many times faster.
@@agnesmeszaros-matwiejuk8783then be careful if you continue to Copenhagen. There'll be just as many. 😂
@@charisma-hornum-fries there aren‘t as many, I live there.
Hi I’m from Portugal, a country that is in love with roundabouts. Once in a while I get stuck on traffic lights…and wish they’d just replace it with a roundabout. Spread the good word in the US.
In germany, a turned of traffic light blinks yellow for the sides who have to wait and all lights are off for the ones with right of way. If one is a priority road, there are also signs.
The hierarchy of the signals is: police officer signaling, traffic lights, signs and if nothing else is present, it is right before left.
The signs also funtion when electricity is off - rare, but not unregulated
Although not born in Europe, I have lived/worked for between three months and six years in each of: Malmö, München, Den Haag, Cardiff, Brussel, Bilbao, and London. Unlike my six yrs living in VA, during my times in Europe, I only used my car when travelling to isolated villages, and never for daily commutes, within or between cities. Trams, trains, metros, buses, and a very occasional taxi did the job quicker, cheaper, and less stressfully.
I'm glad to hear that. :-)
And I hope you'll travel further north in Scandinavia some day.
With regards from Norway. ;-)
@@Luredreier Would definitely recommend Norway!
With humble regards from Denmark. 🙂
@@Luredreier I have not lived in Norway, but first visited (Stavanger) with my school in 1962, and have since been as far north as Tronheim. København, Danmark, is also a favourite of mine.
I'm European but visited lot of States. And I hate with passion "public transport".I just hate this crap. Americans are right.
Did ur momma drop u on ur head, @@podunkman2709?
In Germany, if google give you a route for one hour on the Autobahn, everyone tries to beat this time xD
Yes, but unfortunately, the software is catching on and gives me lower times :D (I drive a 911)
I usually beat it.😅
Most satisfying is a long trip and you arrive at the time that google predicts, even with numerous 15 min breaks 😂
American living in Sicily. A couple of points. Right on red wouldn't work in most cities here, as the roads are narrow and the buildings are often closer to the road, so by the time you can see the crossing traffic, your car is already half way into the lane. While that isn't always the case, it is often enough that it's simpler and less confusing to just have people wait for the green light. (Sicilians don't really acknowledge traffic laws as such. They consider them to be more like traffic suggestions here, so making them more ambiguous than they already are seems like a bad idea.)
Also with the traffic lights. In many US cities, people pull their cars up over the crosswalk and way over the stop lines. If you do that here, you can't see the light, so people here don't crowd the intersection as much. It took some getting used to, since the lights aren't where I expected them to be, but the only times when they're hard to see is when you're crowding the intersection.
@johnbarelli6561:
"(Sicilians don't really acknowledge traffic laws as such. They consider them to be more like traffic suggestions here, so making them more ambiguous than they already are seems like a bad idea.)"
As an Italian, I can say this: FACTS!!!!😆😆😆
As you say, Sicily is not known by their attachment to the rules .. hahahah
I was in Sicily last year. I enjoyed my stay there a lot, but as a pedestrian it sometimes was a bit too adventurous for my taste. Why do they even bother to put zebra stripes on pedestrian crossings if noone's gonna stop anyway? 😂 I quickly figured out how to cross them. You just start walking as long as cars are far away enough to stop / slow down. I also tried to smile at the driver so they would feel bad for killing me.
@@ZAGOR64took buses in Naples, terrifying , even the way to drive in which lane is merely a suggestion. I went to get on a bus, which had stopped in the middle lane , looked left which should have been fine and got pulled into a puddle by a pedestrian which saved my life as a car was coming up road the wrong way. I had to then go to museum dripping wet.
Thanks random pedestrian, I appreciated pulling pulled into that particular pedestrian.
By the way most cars in Naples are beaten up in on both sides .
Never ever try to drive in Naples it is a sport that non Neapolitans could not hope to compete in .
@@dianeshelton9592
Although Naples and Sicily are two COMPLETELY different realities, they share a common rule: NO RULES are written in stones, and are up to "interpretation".Naples a bit more, though! LOL. I did visit Naples, and I did manage to drive there ONCE. It doesn't matter if you are a native Italian Driver...it does matter not if you're a master at aggressive or defensive driving....nothing and I meant NOTHING could prepare you for the insanity of Naple's drivers. Red on the light? Just f*cking GO, they scream...one way? say who? Just go man...hahaha hahaha.
Pure madness! And do we wanna talk about the mopeds? Looks like those streets in Bombai or Mogadishu, where 2 or 3, sometimes even 4 people on scooters (obviously NO helmets) are wawing in and out of traffic at warp speed.
Still...after you survive all that, you realize it's just controlled chaos, and how they do it.
13:20 another advantage of standard signs with symbols and specific shapes is that they can be recognized even when covered in snow, for example yield, stop, main road etc
21:50, I think his point about "if you're turning, it feels like you're going through a red light" is that _after you've turned_ you then pass the red light controlling the road that you've turned into, which if you're not used to it can be confusing. From my point of view, the US system of traffic lights on the far side of the intersection meant they kept catching me out when I would suddenly have to pull up 50 feet before the lights because I'm not used to the lights being so far beyond the stop line. You also have to remember that at most junctions in Europe, there are fewer lanes of traffic than in the US, so you haven't got to look so far to the side. There is then usually a repeater light either on the other side of the junction or at eye level for the front driver.
Because the traffic light is right next to you, you just stop a bit earlier (or stretch your head). Maybe it is safer for pedestrians, as it is uncommon to stop after the line as you won't be able to see the light.
Sometimes there's two sets of lights too, two close and two further away. Regardless, the lights are usually placed in a way where it's never gonna be a problem to see. But there are ofc places where it is a bit hard to see. But like you said, you can simple stop a tad bit earlier than the line is drawn and it's all good.
he needs to play more ETS 2 , and he will get it 🤣🤣
Well, that's the point. Is not uncommon in north america seeing cars stopping past the marking in the intersection, sometimes even blocking the pedestrian crossing. Moving the semaphore like in Europe would fix that issue immediately since if the drivers stop too far ahead, they simply won't be able to see the traffic light.
You can stop early but not so easily in dense city traffic. It's really difficult to stop just in time to avoid the light changing to red and to be able to see the traffic light properly.
@@TheFinePlayer Only some countries in Europe has additional sets. In Scandinavia, you even find 4 or up to 7 traffic lights facing you,
Many cultural shocks i had with my first visit to The States, but my second visit when i drove there was just as shocking or even more than the first one. A few examples:
Number one - when police want to stop you over here in the EU, they will NEVER flash their lights and/or siren behind you. They will either signal a patrol ahead who is stationary to pull you over or will overtake you, roll their passenger window down and show you a stop sign that means you must pull over where it safely to do so. Occasionally in Germany on the autobahh you can see an unmarked car that will have an electronic board in the back that says "POLIZEI. STOP". The moment we see flashing lights, that means there is an emergency vehicle behind - make way as fast as possible.
Second - your attitude to sirens and lights is just unspeakable. Over here if people on the road hear a siren and/or see flashing blue or red lights, they instantly reduce speed if they are on the highway and move over to the right or if on an A or B road or in the city - completely stop at the side of the road with the hazard lights one. IF this happens at a red light, cars still move over furthest to the left and right of the road, even enter the junction slightly if they need to to make a clean lane for the emergency vehicle. In the US i saw an ambulance with sirens and lights on, that was sitting in a small traffic jam for 3 minutes like the rest of the cars and no one was even trying to move anywhere. You will NEVER see that anywhere in Europe.
Three - the legendary 4-way stop sign. Here the stop sign means the vehicle should come to a complete stop and you should make sure there are no other vehicles or pedestrians in the way. If you made that as you were coming to the stop sign, the moment your car stops moving, you can roll out again. In the US a very polite policeman stopped me and explained to me that you must stay stationary for at least 3 seconds of a stop sign. Doesn't matter if there are cars or not. Guy was cool though and just let me off with a warning and wished me a safe journey.
And Four and final - the lack of lane discipline. 2 lane highway or interstate (still don't know the difference), 75mph or even 85mph speed limit - people crawling at 50mph in the left lane. Completely legal to undertake them with 20-30mph speed difference in the right lane. This is just absurd. Pure evil chaos. Idk who came up with this idea, but over here in some countries you can send the video you have from your dash cam to the police and they will fine them for driving like morons.
Point 3 would also apply to Germany. You will need to full stop (like whole of Europe) and wait 3 seconds before you go again. Fines re quite big. So it is not just the USA.
@@Thunder1976NL You never had to wait 3 seconds. There is no such thing.
In France, same as the US for the Stop sign. If you dont do so and you get stopped by the police they will remove 4 points from your driver's licence (and WE just have a total of 12 points on it) and you'll get a ticket of 135€.
"they will NEVER flash their lights"
not the regular lights, but they will turn on their blue lights (w/o the siren), to grab your attention, and have a LED text with mirrored writing for you to be able to read in your rear view mirror, telling you to pull over.
happened to me last year, because i forgot when my TÜV ran out.
I'm from Portugal and pretty much follow all your comments. Feels really weird when so many different aspects of going about your normal day-to-day life are actually HUGE DIFFERENCES on how life goes in the US. Suddenly you realize that making changes takes whole generations (OMG, please don't let it be that way!) but actually that's what it would take
As a lot of people have already said, turning right on red would not work very well at all in most european cities, we have way too much pedestrian and bicycle traffic here, much more than most US cities!
In my experience driving in Finland and Sweden, Google maps always works just fine, I have never had any problems with it, but I can't speak on how it works in the US since I've never driven over there, and honestly, with how easy it is to get a license over there, and the lack of mandatory vehicle inspections to make sure your car is in safe to drive on the road, Im not sure I ever want too, I would not feel safe!
turn right on red is pretty common here in germany, but via green arrows. some places in my hometown even had permanent green arrows, but after some back-and-forth, i believe they intend to phase them out in favor of the green arrow traffic light additions.
im sure it causes more issues than to simply not allow people to turn on red, but i think the severity is overstated, as most people do pay attention to pedestrians and they are usually slow-moving too, so cant really surprise you. the bigger issue would be bikers, because they move quickly (and arent supposed to bike across regular pedestrian traffic lights, but obviously everyone does anyway)
There are many junctions in the UK where it would work - especially ones where there is no pedestrian access at all. What could be done is to add a sign only to junctions where turning on red was allowed.
What I was saying was it would never work as a general rule like it is in the US
@@AHVENANIt is not a general rule in the US. Some states permit it, some don't and, in those that do, signs may prohibit it on selected junctions. If implemented in the UK, it would make more sense to put signs on the junctions where it was permitted.
In Europe, you see a traffic light perfectly well before an intersection as long as you don’t roll past it. That simple.
About flashing traffic signals: the signs even work if the lights arent flashing, which can in germany also be the case (not only because of power outage)
The traffic light situation is to prevent cars from creeping up on the intersection. There are usually traffic lights on the side as well so the first car can look right next to him. Furthermore our intersections aren't that big so that keeps everything compact to slow people down and reduce high speed crashes on the intersections.
2:56 That is untrue. The US was built along rail lines and streetcars were common. That infrastructure was removed and significant parts of cities were buldozed for the automobile. In contrast, european settlements were almost exclusively NOT built from railway stations and were not designed for any kind of motorized traffic. Europe just made slighly less stupid carcentric policies. And a lot of the developments in Europe are rather recent changes and many european cities continue to improve public transport and bike and pedestrian friendly solutions. There is NO excuse, that the US cannot initiate similar changes.
8:48 What is so great about having different flashing lights when the traffic lights are not operating as usual? In Europe, traffic lights can be swiched of at night, when there is no traffic (or when technology fails) and they are automatically replaced by the already present roadsigns, which guaranty, that traffic is still regulated as good as possible - and not "Stop" or nothing. That requires some more signs, but the result of it is clearly better, because the buisier road can simply get the right of way (as if there had never been a traffic light) and the minor crossing road can get a yield or Stop depending on what is more appropriate at that particular intersection.
EDIT: I prefer traffic signs and lights on the proximal side of the intersection (european style). The stopping points are usually placed in a way, that you can still nicely see the light and if that is not the case, there are additional lights with other placements. In some rare cases you might have to look up in a somewhat awkward angle, that is true. Why do I prefer it? Firstly, it keeps the focus of drivers close to the intersection, and that helps not notice all bikes and pedestrians. Secondly, when you approach a series of intersections, there is never any ambiguity, which one the lights refer to, especially if some are regulated by signs instead of lights. And finally, everything can be built a little smaler, when it is a little closer to the drivers at the moment, when they must be able to read it.
Have to disagree with your first statement at 2:56. He is right over half of Americans do actually live in suburbs/suburban developments. This also doesn't even take into account for people who live in "urban cities" which are actually just giant suburbs but are counted as urban because of their population and major city status.
While you are correct that the US and its cities were initially built along rail lines, that is simply a different era. Cities are obviously no longer what they once were, they don't have the same populations and most definitely didn't stay the same size as they were then as they are constantly growing and changing over time.
Also a majority of American cities (especially the sunbelt) saw their most of their development post ww2 and during the 50s and 60s, so I don't think its fair to say that "they were bulldozed for the car" unless we assume that the city in question stayed completely the same over a period of time (population and land area). It would be more accurate to say cities grew around the car and acclimated to them.
Because cities are no longer what they once were, public transit ceases to function almost completely or is very difficult to implement. By the worlds standards they are simply too big and spread out in area for the populations they have. Unless a metropolitan region were to quite literally shrink in size and cram its population into a smaller land area or grow to have a population well past 20+ million people. public transit in will never function or be efficient in America the same way it is for the rest of the world.
You could build the worlds largest public transit system in the Greater Houston area and it would have such a pathetically low ridership it would basically be meaningless as to why it was built in the first place. That's simply due to American city design, it wouldn't even matter how you built it or how much of it was built, densities are so low and walking anywhere would be a massive waste of time out of your day public transit ceases to function.
@@blackhole9961 Well, that was a long reply. So, firstly, thanks for the engagement ...
1.) Nothing that you said addressed the fact that the statement in the video about how US-Cities were built is factually wrong.
2.) Yes, there were big new developments just for the car, but that does not change the fact, that old and dense parts of US cities had that infrastructure and that it was actively removed. The description "buldozed for the car" is a far more accurate description then "built for the car" (both, of cause, would be silly as absolute statements, but when you understood that much about the built for cars phrase, I guess, that should not be anything that has to be explained). And the description "built for the car" becomes even less accurate, when it is supposed to be in contrast to european cities. By the way, the bulldozing is not done. When traffic gets worse, US cities still add lanes to allready wide roads, instead of reducing them and adding bike lanes, bus lanes or rail-systems.
3.) Sure , cities were no longer what they were at some point. The same holds true for European cities, which were built for horses and pedestrians. Car infrastructure as well as public transport were both fitted later. But there was far less buldozing for the car, more investment in the public transport system in the first place and a higer degree of "remove the car infrastructure in favor of public transport" lateron.
4.) And here it becomes interesting. Well , yes, urban sprawling makes good public transport more difficult to implement and that is one difference between the US and Europe. But that ...
- does not affect public transport in dense centers at all
- does not affect public transport pver long distances at all
- does not mean, that those sprawls could not be easily connected to that system via park and ride (+ pedestrian and bike infrastructure) inside each suburb
- does not mean, that policies against more urban sprawling in the future could not be effective (and more mass transit is one of them, because cities would become denser and could become more attractive by added green space, as soon as the obscene amount of parking requirenments would shrink)
- does not take into account, that, yes, a public transport system can an should be a little overbuilt at some places to enhance connectability for the whole system (as it ist the case for most german villages for example).
Even if subburbs were such an impossibe thing to connect to any public transport infrastructure as you describe it here, the fact, that the US does not built it comparably to Europe, even were it is clearly warranted.
I stand with what I wrote. Europe neither replaced cars nor did it built its transport infrastructure over night nor did it start with conditions that were less favorable for the car and better for public transport. Specific difficulties would have to be addressed - as that was the case in Europe.
@@martinhuhn7813 I don't think it's correct to say that American cities are built factually wrong when the city design is mainly driven by a society/culture/ and its economics.
Lets face it, Americans are very individualistic, materialistic, like big anything, and value space. Americans no longer desire to live in tenement/ apartments/ flats/ etc. Americans actively chose suburbia and still continue to choose suburban life style. Americans move out of the dense inner cities and into suburbs, which is why dense inner city neighborhoods were removed as they became old, dilapidated, and didn't grow by much in comparison to newer developments.
I think it is more accurate to say that American cities were built for the car. Yes they existed before the car, but again the majority of them didn't see they major growths and development until the 50s and 60s. Dallas and Atlanta are not the same small major they once were. They grew outward and kept expanding outward, throughout the 50s and 60s. The dense downtown and uptown areas really represent a small minority of the city.
European cities remained relatively dense over time mainly because they cant expand outward anymore the same way American cities do. Its simply a difference in how cities are built and expand. Europe built upwards with apartments/flats/row homes etc., while America expanded outwards with mostly single family homes and euclidean zoning simply because it has the land to.
The greater Houston area is actually bigger than some European countries like North Macedonia and nearly the size of Belgium. The Houston area would even dwarf the Tokyo metropolitan area being nearly twice its size and way less dense for obvious reasons, this in despite that the Tokyo area has more people than Texas.
for your 4th statement,
- You are correct it doesn't affect dense centers, however American cities lack overall density and dense centers in general.
- Public transit is heavily affected over long distance, its the main reason why train travel became practically obsolete to the era of the plane. Trains simply could not keep up with the speed and cost of planes. All of those train companies either went bust or switched to freight, because passenger rail was quickly falling out of business.
- Again you are also correct, park and rides are available like here in the DFW area (DART). However the DART system is mostly USELESS for anyone who doesn't live right next to it and it doesn't take them to a destination they want to go. DART has a pathetically low ridership per sq mile of track for a light rail system of its size, even though theoretically it should be carrying A LOT more people.
- Policies could be implemented, but thats mainly up to the culture and society of a population and what it decides it really wants. So unless Americans decided the next morning they all suddenly wanted to live a denser life style, its mostly not going to happen.
- okay but why overbuild it? It would be an incredibly expensive system that hardly anyone would actually use. Even Adam Something goes over this, that even if you did built it it would be practically useless. Why create more public debt like that? Lastly it depends on the city, some cities do build them where its warranted, some don't.
Europe actually did start with less favorable conditions for cars, they just still managed to implement them into their societies. European roads and streets are WAY narrower, there are more mid rise buildings which are way closer, and everything is generally way more compact. Even after WW2 when their cities were bombed to ash, they basically just rebuilt their cities as they were and slowly implemented the car over time. America on the other hand had newer cities which saw most of their development post ww2.
@@blackhole9961 You bring up stuff which I never said like: "that American cities are built factually wrong" as your very first point, and I do not see any benefit of replying to strawmen, I also see no sense in replying once again to many other of your statements.
However I will point out one interesting point, which you brought up more than once in different words:
"Policies could be implemented, but thats mainly up to the culture and society of a population and what it decides it really wants"
In other words: The real reason, why the US cannot have a better public transport system, is, that the US supposedly continuously does not want to or at least does not want any policies which would allow that. The US continuously and actively decides against it.
I believe that at least to the extent, that this reflects what you personally want. Otherwise you would not have to continuously use "not enough density" as an excuse for not having compareble public transport infrastructure at places, where the conditions are at leasst comparable or even better then in europe.
You know a fun fact: large parts of Europe were built after the advent of the automobile. We had this little "oopsie" in the 40's where there was plenty of space (and need) to build houses afterwards. The US had to bulldoze their cities on their own to make room for cars.
We have our sprawling areas as well, but these were (and unfortunately are still being) built much later. But the US being built after the automobile is just a very, very lame excuse.
actually, using a bike in winter is very popular in northern europe. they have the infrastructure and services that kee the cycling roads rideable.
When he said that about northern regions in USA he wasn't talking about the state of the road. He meant that when it's really cold people aren't usually in the mood for riding bikes. Because it's cold out there. In the northest regions of Europe cold weather is more common most of the year so people are more used to it. In places like Spain where most of the time is warm people are not used to very cold weather and as I said, we're not in the mood for riding bikes.
22:31
Our traffic Lights are positioned before the intersection to allow visibility not only to the car in front but to most cars behind. We have the usual top cluster, which benefits drivers further back, but it becomes impractical for those at the front of the line.
For this, we have a second cluster on the same pole, positioned at +/-eye level, to our right, that displays the same information as the ones on the top.
For two-lane, left-turn intersections, we will usually have a single, eye-level traffic light to the left, to facilitate visibility.
idk about other EU countries but in Estonia, we usually have the traffic lights before and after the intersection. So the first person can look at the further one and the people behind can see the closer one. Also they are very clearly labeled and you would almost never confuse them with lights for other lanes/directions
Same here in Finland. Although there are a few spots in Helsinki where there are many consecutive traffic lights so they only have one by those.
Sweden as well
Same in Ireland.
The trafficlights on the near side of an intersection in Europe (at least everywhere I know) is mostly due to the much more densely built up areas. You are mostly used to widespread intersections with a big pole on every corner and the trafficlights hanging on some wires across.
Putting a construction like that on a crossroad in the narrow streets of a 1000yo city that was builtbin medieval times simply won't work. Often you have way more complicated intersections than a simple T, with like 6 roads just meeting in a small place thatvwill barely fit two cars passing each other. So everyone knows which signal is for them the lights are right there, almost at the stopping line.
Yes, you have to have a rubber neck to see them at times, but in difficult places often they put a second small set of lights down on the pole for the front driver to see.
I had many american friends over that who were complaing abut the placement, and I always ask the where they would have put them. If you want to stick to one system for everywhere you don't have much choice around here...
It also prevents the drivers from moving past the stopping marking because if the do, they won't be able to see the light change. In North America, that marking seems to be completely optional, and is not uncommon seeing pedestrian dodging stopped cars while crossing the street on a semaphore.
I understand the rationale for traffic light placement in EU, but I still hate that setup after 30y of driving. When the sun is hitting directly into the traffic light and you need to use all the known yoga poses to stretch your neck to see when the light has changed, it's simply annoying. And of course, if you don't move in the milliseconds of the light change regardless if you can see it or not, the honking starts. 🥴
@@MarL1pWell, if the honking is so universal, couldn’t you just rely on that? 😅
I’ve been wondering how the far-side traffic lights would work with a pure pedestrian crossing. Or are they at the near side in that case? They are on the near side on railroad crossings in the U.S..
@@aphextwin5712 Good point. I think pedestrian lights are placed similar in Europe and the US. Those are also normally across the street around here, though we also sometimes have additional small lights directly on the near side post at about chest hight.
The pedestrian lights in Europe also do not have writing on them, but a little red man standing and a green man walking to keep it universal language wise...
Our traffic lights are only about 6 ft. high so you can see them when you're in the first spot. For the drivers further back, there are additional ones high up over the middle of the road. The reason is mainly geometry. If you don't have an American grid with only 90 degree angles, you need that. If the lights were across, you couldn't tell if the light at your 10 o'clock or your 2 o'clock is meant for you.
as someone who is over 6 foot, it'd be less than ideal if they were that low. they start at roughly 7 foot eight, generally. (document i found mentions 210/220cm).
the traffic light being right in front of you is not really an issue, mostly the light is close enough to you, that you can easily see it in your peripheral vision, or 95% of the time, there's also a sign on across from you. Being from Scandinavia myself, i applaud the attention to detail in the European road systems, at least for the northern part of Europe. Driving from Denmark to Spain or Italy, poses no real issue, even though i'm crossing through several countries, since the roadwork is largely similar and standardised. Also the safety in europe is in a league of its own compared to other parts of the world. The number of traffic incidents in europe per my understanding is much lower than in the US, largely due to EU posing several standardisations which is held to a high standard across the board. The worst country in Europe in terms of accidents, is still better than over half the states in the US sadly, and the US also has some of the worst traffic accidents per million people of any country.
I think a major factor in safety across the European roads, has to do with acquiring a license. In the EU you have a set rules regarding acquiring a licence, firstly you have to take X amount of driving lessons in an actual driving school, along with X amount of theoretical lessons, and at the end you have to pass a strict theoretical exam and physical exam to test your driving skills. The amount of driving and theoretical lessons you have differes slightly from country to country, but europe has set a high minimum. In Denmark, you have to have had at least 16 driving lessons on the road with an instructor and 29 45 minutes of theory lessons at the same school to be allowed to take a theoretical exam and first, after you've passed that exam, then you can sign up for a practical exam, all with a state authorised driving instructor, which isn't from your driving school. It's those high standards for acquiring a driving license, that really nails in the general publics ability to understand and operate on the roads.
Also it's illegal to hog the fast lane if you aren't overtaking in Europe, which is amazing. Even staying in the middle lane in a 3 lane highway, if you aren't overtaking is technically an offense.
In Poland, at least in 2006 when I was earning my licence you had to take 40 hours of driving lessons and if I remember correctly 8 hours of theoretical lessons before being allowed to take an exam.
Still in Denmark people often seem to forget to take the right lane, drives me crazy. The other problem is the abuse of fog light. If you can see half a km in front of you, you should turn it off. After a decade living in Denmark, I’ve never experienced a fog thick enough that there was a need to turn it on. Worst is, when people turn on the fog light in rain and try to burn my retina.
"Also the safety in Europe is in a league of its own compared to other parts of the world."
I would say NORTHERN Europe.
Turning right on red can be very dangerous , lol.
We have greenarrow lights and signs ,but at the signs u have to stop and yield and is only used at safer crossings .
Red is red! we don't pass! But in France and elsewhere in Europe, we have an additional light flashing in orange that allows you to turn right when the configuration of the intersection allows it to be done safely. Remember that in European cities there are sidewalks with people, children crossing while you turn right (their pedestrian light is green!), and that often you don't have visibility because of the width of the streets.
The roundabout at 11:00 is in Slovenia. Also on intersections where it's safe to turn right on red, there is a special sign on the traffic light.
I use public transportation for most things. I do live in the city, so, that probably matters. I did notice while visiting the US, that you drive everywhere, even just across the road from one shop to another, not bothering to cross the road on foot. People looked at me and my sister when we crossed it :D
the light being close makes sense in europe. traffic lights are mainly in cities and we do actually walk in europe so we need a crossing for pedestrians too. usually the crossing gives you enough space from the lights to see them. if there is a 2-3 lanes intersection you would be 15 meters from the lights.
Freezing weather doesn't stop you from biking. It just makes you go slower. I recently biked in 4 inch snow. It wasn't the most pleasant experiences, but I success reached my destination. So I'd say it's doable.
22:25You're supposed to stop before you pass the light. They're usually on poles beside the road, and lower down than ones slung across the road, so it's a lot nearer your eyeline that one the width of a multi-lane stroad away from you
1. I was in chicago around 4 weeks ago. Coming from Berlin Germany. Chicago really has pretty decent public transport for US standards but is more like on the poor end compared to most places of Europe. (Have visited 20 US states).
2. Driving in Chicago was the hell for me. Getting from Mayfair out of the city in direction Detroit took me 2 hours driving. The city was never ending... :D.
3. The turn right on red feels right in the first place in the US (And i like it) but there are reasons why we dont have it here. And they are the same why you dont have in New York City. The cross walks are packed full with people usually often plus 20 people. And when someone would try to block the cross walk while it would lead to a higher accident rate. But when almost no one is walking it is working. We have printed green right turn signs when the intersection suits to safly turns right on red like on red.
4. The traffic lights are also with a purpose on the same side as the cars on an intersection. This ensures that the car comes to a stop like 10-20 feet before the intersection. so the pedestrian crosswalk is not blocked by a car.
Our european traffic is much more pedestrian friendly and this is reflected in these rules.
4. When you wan to turn left in europe/germany it is soo much easier. Almost every intersection has a short green light phase 3-5 seconds at the end of the normal green phase for left turn cars. The lights are located on the left front corner for the turning car. So you already stay in the intersection. Some kind of faster easier to understand clearence phase for left turners.
Sorry for my english it is not perfect.
People really seem to underestimate how easy it is to ride a bike in snow. It's really not that hard at all. The most dangerous is 0 Celsius degrees: when it's been rainy outside and at night the puddles freeze over.
The worst part is when the snow plow have the blade a bit up off the ground. Leaves a thin layer of compact snow that looks flat and nice, but the bike tire will go through and makes it impossible to predict how to balance. Then it's easier to bike before they plowing the road, in like 10cm of snow.
It's all about the gloves, Baby! I layer them with mittens...
hahaha I think it is because it is part of your climate and you have adapted to the snow, I am from Spain and one year, in winter it snowed 3 days in a row (grandparents had not seen that here) it was a terrible collapse for everyone, many towns incommunicado, the children did not go to school for days, power outages... many crashed cars and hospitals and health centers overloaded with people who had hurt themselves when they fell.
@@israelbaras8237 Of course exceptions are exactly that; exceptions. They're unusual and it makes sense people need time to adapt to such changes.
However my point is towards those who use snow every year in their city as a reason to not build bike lanes.
I have often heard people say "well here it snows a lot and you can't ride a bike when it snows, so bike lanes are useless half the year." Which is, of course, ridiculous.
or the handbrake oil freezes
_"A truly developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation"._
Edit: I still agree with this guy's particular quote, but cos I didn't he's a bad guy at the time, my bad, I will be more careful to check who the quote is from in the future.
Like North Korea :D great communism/socialism/leftist citations ?
In most developed countries rich use public transportation (sure- but not to travel) -- but to get rid of the poor people in their cars blocking their way to go somewhere and to park their cars near the door without problems. All they want is a good clean habitat for them.
Too curious. Here if you drive a car people will think you lives in small and poor village out of the city. If youre rich enough to live in the city you never will drive...
The familyhouse its in the same street of yours, the supermarket its two blocks away, theres a completly free hospital in every neighbourhood and the farest work place its 5 minutes in subway... so why you waste time and money with a car???
yea maybe but we don't have 11 Naval carrier groups...😆
No creo que Petro sea buen ejemplo de nada. Ni creo que su objetivo sea desarrollar a Colombia.
Si Colombia se volviera un país desarrollado, nadie lo votaría. Tal como dijo Hugo Chavez en Venezuela, que debían acabar con los ricos, que son sus enemigos y multiplicar a los pobres.
@@MikeB4plLike Germany and not like f.e. postsoviet shitholes.
Traffic lights: How do you see it? Just keep your eyes open. In some places, if you are the first in line, you might have problems with the angle you'd have to look to see the overhead light but in most cases - at least where I live - you'll have additional lights on the side, where you can see them if you don't just stop on that spot, where they are hidden behind you car struture ( the metal between your windows - don't know the name ).
There's a smaller traffic 🚦 light lower on the pole for first car at the intersection.
Biggest difference between US and Europe is vehicle condition. All of Europe has an annual vehicle inspection covering all safety aspects as well as emissions. Most of America has no such checks and there are only a few states that employ an annual "sticker" that covers a car completing a run cycle with no fault codes. As a result there are some shockingly unroadworthy, dangerous cars in the US. It would really worry me having children/loved ones on the roads in America.
Really? No MOT in the US?
That's crazy!
In Italy it's every 2 years
I think in most EU, there is an inspection after 3 years for a new vehicle, and every 2 years after that.
I'm pretty sure many US states have a similar system, some even have annually inspections.
Here in Belgium, the lights are to the right AND above or to the left. As you are generally asked to stop 5m in front of the intersection, visibility is usually not a problem as the placement of the lights depends on the layout of the intersection. Lights across the intersection would, for us, be highly confusing.
Also in Hungary. You have a light on the right (which might be for the right lane ONLY, or combined, depends if it's full light or just arrow), and you have light above the lanes. I guess it's the same for most European countries, I was never confused while driving in Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg or even Slovenia, Romania, Montenegro, Croatia, etc. I find the US way also confusing. If I turn... wait, there's a light over there, too! :)
To be honest, as a Dutchman I always hardly registered that people basically don't cycle in foreign countries. Now it's picking up in Germany and France too and that I register, but I got there by car usually. I remember missing my bicycle as a kid with my parents on foreign vacation, but never wondered where and how to cycle there.
Well a very obvious feature in the Netherlands is lack of steep hills in the major cities. It makes cycling a lot more comfortable.
The Netherlands are incredibly flat. Hills turn commuting into an endurance sport. I would love to cycle more but in either direction from my house is hills and you turn up at your destination a sweaty mess with jelly legs.
@@frankmitchell3594Please look up the channel NOT JUST BIKES who deals with ‘arguments’ like this. Yes, it obviously helps that the Netherlands is very flat in most places. However the USA is also flat (as I have seen myself) in most places, and even in the alps cities are generally build in the valleys between the mountains where biking is easily done.
Plus we have electric bikes now, that can solve this problem. And bikes are becoming more popular all around the world, including the USA. NYC, Portland, Chicago, Washington Minneapolis and even SAN FRANCISCO all are in the top 10 for best cycling cities. (For the Americas) Who have invested heavily in new infrastructure the past decade.
Cycling can be done EVERYWHERE at any time. Cold or hot weather is NOT an excuse NOT TO BIKE, as the brilliant channel NOT JUST BIKES has proven many times. Biking is done in above the arctic circle, in humid climates like Singapore or all around the equator. (As I have seen myself).
Addiction to cars is the only real reason people keep on making up nonsensical arguments against cycling!
@@Dreyno
E bike.
@@DreynoEver heard of wind? What use is a flat country when you have a strong headwind.
I'm from the Boston area but have been living in Belgium for almost 3 years now.
With the traffic lights on your side of the intersection: it's not always like that in EU, but is most common. I think one reason is you usually stop much further back from the intersection than in the US due to larger pedestrian crossings and bicycle paths/lanes as well as giving busses more room to turn since the road are generally much more narrow. It also I think is part of the reason why the right on red in the EU isn't a great idea, you have much less visibility over the intersection area, especially with narrow streets and buildings usually right up to more narrow sidewalk.
I've absolutely fallen in love with the traffic circles. They are everywhere in EU and usually when there aren't, you simply follow the rules of the road with priority vs yield based on direction/signs, stop signs are rare. It's not all roses though, as some places, especially in Belgium, have barriers that jut out into the road in residential areas that force 1-way traffic on a 2-way road. The idea I guess is to slow traffic, but I find it just causes traffic jams during rush hours and find them incredibly annoying. On the other hand, minimal car traffic and pedestrian only paths are what most residents prefer over the inconvenience of traffic, I get it.
The culture of walking/cycling short distance is just amazing in the EU. I live just outside a small old city with a fairly compact center. It is faster, much faster, to take my city bike from my apartment into the city or train station than to drive. You have so much freedom on a bicycle as you can go almost anywhere and go store to store very quickly, where as with a car you either park and walk everywhere or need to constantly be moving your car. Of course public transit is amazing, so I can also take a bus basically from my front door into town or to the train station, and then get anywhere by train/bus. A car can be nice to have in Belgium, but is usually not necessary. Heck, even in most places in Switzerland and Germany, you can reach pretty much any remote hiking trail by train or bus! Try doing that in the US!
The left to pass only thing is amazing out here to and just the general attitude of drivers here. On rare occasion you come across someone oblivious just cruising in the left lane, but I have yet to encounter the 'highway sheriff' attitude a lot of US drivers have, blocking traffic in the left lane and refusing to move because they are driving the speed limit and you should to! The drivers are super nice out here as well. For example, if you are approaching slower traffic while in the right lane and there is car a bit behind in the left lane, they will 95% of the time anticipate that you will want to pass and give you room to move in front of them, even slowing down if they have to. Not like the US where they will just be thinking of themselves and then if you dare put on your directional, will speed up to make sure you don't move in front of them!
I don't know about USA but in Europe if you put on your directional or are already in the left lane and show intention (purring on directional) the car being overtaken isn't allowed to speed up. In some countries fines for doing that are quite high.
In my country Portugal, you have the traffic lights up on a pole so you can see them above the cars ahead of you so they don't block it (specially because of the orange light that tells you that lights are turning from green to red, you should be aware) , but if you are the first car in the intersection, you have another set of lights at eye level, so you don't have to duck to see what light is on.
I often got strange looks when I was on public transport alone at the age of 10. Going to school in Australia. But what they didn't realise is I've been doing it since literally year one because I grew up in Europe.
Also public transport is very looked down upon in Adelaide (where i live now). The bus and train are mainly seen as derro/for the poor
I was taking public transit to school at the end of the first year of grammar school.
Roundabouts in the U.S. ? OMG, nooooo !!!!!
Flashing red lights? YEEES!!!
The STOP signs are better than the YIELD signs. Period.
When you're allowed to just turn right at a traffic light we have a lane going right just before you reach the traffic light.
Much easier since red still equals "STOP".
Also intersections with a traffic light have markings where I live with a thick white line indicating where you need to stop. From that point you can easily see the traffic light that's applicable to you (either diagonally right or left to you, or in front of you hanging above the road).
A lot of comments already say why turning right on red is often not doable in europe. I would like to add that in germany we have a green arrow sign on traffic lights where turning right on red actually is allowed. But if the traffic light has such an addition then normally city planning already calculated the risks and gains. Normally it's mostly found at streets where there are not as much pedestrians and cyclers.
In Slovenia we also stareted with the same thing, this year. Its not bad idea but like you said, where is it possible. Greetings
same in Sweden.
for the trafic ligth before the intersection there is 2 ligth. the big that u saw on the vidéo. High and well visible. But there is a smaler one closer to the ground that u miss. so when u are close to the ligth u don't see the big ligth, u see the smaller one.
In the Netherlands we work with a detection system (loops) for the traffic lights. not like other countries drive alternately, but where it is busy the light will turn green more quickly. and there are many more cyclists and pedestrians. So free to the right is not really an option...
Traffic lights usually have two lights :
One quite high up that you can see from far away and then one much lower on the pole for car drivers etc. to see when they're stopped right next to it.
You can look up any intersection with lights in Paris (and many others places) to see what I mean.
Higher lights also allow truck truck drivers to see the lights, since they won't be able to see the lower ones.
In Europe, when you are the first car in front of lights, you know it's green because you hear screaming engines behind you. 😀
SPOILER ALERT
There is very often extra little light down there pointed at you.
8:30 Depends on the country. If the traffic lights are off, the road with the right of way has often no flashing or light at all (i.e. the traffic light can be completely ignored), whereas the others have the flashing yellow light to signal caution and as a reminder to look for traffic signs. But it is normally also mandatory to have additional fall-back-traffic-signs in case the traffic light is off on every crossing with a traffic light. So a blinking yellow light will have either a stop-sign or a give-way-sign next to it whereas a completely dead traffic light has no meaning at all (it simply doesn't exist legally).
Here in Switzerland we don't have turning right on red, but there are dedicated turning lanes which sometimes don't have their own traffic light and you just have to yield to other traffic going the same direction. So it's basically a turn on red, but I think it's safer here because the signs and road layout and road markings communicate it more clearly.
There's the "Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals" which about half the countries in the world are signatories to and includes (almost) all Eurasia from the west coast of France to the east coast of Russia; that means you could drive over 7000 km (~4400mi) (as the crow flies) and recognise all the important road signs. US/Ca/Auz and NZ are the only "modern democracies" that aren't signatures; probably because they don't really have any/many land borders that people can drive across.
I hate stop signs. They are so uncommon where I've lived that I remember where each one in my area is. The whole "first come" rule for right of way also strikes me as a recipe for accidents as I'm sure there are drivers that race to intersections at high speed then slam on the breaks to "be first". In almost all countries I've lived in continental Europe you must give way to the right unless indicated otherwise (e.g. priority roads); no ambiguity, if you hit someone coming from the right it's your fault. Yellow flashing (or failed) traffic lights mean normal rules apply, so you must yield to the right.
Hehe... loved the detail about the roundabouts, Portugal has roundabouts practically in any road where they can squeeze one, mostly with fountains, statues, or just palm trees and flowers in the middle... Often with layers, for local traffic on the outside, and large avenues traffic flow on the inside... This gets a lot of people confused.. For those who don't know how to use them properly, they often they go around several times before getting out of them :)))
O. M. G. My mind is blown! I never realised that the US has traffic lights on the far side of the intersection whereas Europe has the traffic lights on the near side. I lived and travelled in the US and the UK for 26 years and never noticed. I had a look around some US cities and Euro cities to see this in Google Street View. What I did know is that traffic lights are very often strung across roads on wires in the US which is not something you see in Europe.
Side note: here in Australia the traffic lights tend to be BOTH sides.
In Finland they're often on both sides as far as I can remember.
I live near a big city in Germany. With a car it would take me an hour to get into the city centre and an additional half hour to find parking. With the train/subway right by my house it takes me 15 minutes. That's faster than taking it from the suburban areas in the big city and I pay less than half the rent. This is very common for young people like students etc. The differences to rural areas here are schocking though
Town i live in has about 50 round abouts.. works much better than traffic lights, i hate sitting at the lights
22:20 That is extremely rare to see in my experience in europe. usually you have one beside you and one in front.
Here in New Zealand our traffic system is a mixture of both American and European. Auckland, our biggest city, is essentially a mini version of Los Angeles. Very car centric with heavily congested highways, along with inadequate public transport options (relative to other similar sized cities around the world).
We do have a similar system to the United States that allows left turning traffic (right turning traffic for countries that drive on the right) to avoid traffic lights at certain intersections. There will normally be a "give way" (yield) sign on these uncontrolled left only turning bays.
When our traffic lights are not functioning properly, we have a flashing yellow light just like in Europe. Which instructs road users to give way to their right, and to enter the intersection with caution.
Depending on the location our smaller intersections can be controlled by either stop/giveway signs or roundabouts. While our large intersections are almost always controlled by traffic lights on a grid layout similar to the United States.
Our main traffic lights are placed right in front of where vehicles stop just like in Europe, though we normally will also have an addtional set of traffic lights on the other side of the intersection as well (basically a combination of both traffic light locations).
We, as a Central European, were in NZ this April, traveled from South Island to Auckland by campervan and spent 4500 km on the road. We were so pleasantly surprised how the countryside roads are so empty. The biggest shock was when we returned car in Auckland: sooo many cars, kilometers and kilometers of traffic from horizon to city centre even during weekend, especially visible after sundown from Sky Tower. From our point of view it was unnecessary: we were able to travel in Auckland by public transport easily, it was clean and reliable, only hinderance was the necessity to buy a plastic card.
@@MiroslavDrozen Our country roads are fine for the most part, it's within the major cities (mainly Auckland) where it'll get quite busy. Public transport in Auckland overall is lacking, the only real form of public transportation (with a decent network) is busses. There is very little to no light-rail/tramline network, and there are a few key areas where you can't even walk/cycle. There are lots of Californian style highways however.
6:06 is a loss for pedestrians and cyclists. Also a fast way to cause an accident
The traffic light being right next to your car can sometimes be hard to see. But at least in Finland we usually have lights also in front of you at the other side of the intersection. Sometimes there are even small traffic lights in the same pole at car height paired up with the top lights.
One big reason for this is that you can't see the road lines during winter. So people know to stop in front of the traffic light poles.
In Denmark we have lights next to us and across in intersections with lights and in some intersections we also have lights diagonal to the left for those cars turning left
He doesnt listen , yellow flasging lights or lights of doesnt mean sneak your way BUT FOLLOW THE SIGNs😂
About traffic lights in EU: if the stop sign painted on the road surface is not visible (for example covered by snow) the traffic light shows you the line where you have to stop your car when it's red. And you can sure you will see it even if you are stand next to them because they aren't so high (they are not just above lanes but on the pavement (or sidewalk)) and usually they have a pair at the other side as well. I think it is more safety.
My ex got fined for driving on the left lane on high way in Finland. This was late night, sun still up and no traffic really anywhere. We got stopped by "civilian" police car and she got fined for driving on left lane when there is no traffic nor reason to stay on it. So people to tend to go back to right lane, for that time we were just tired and it was an mistake. No harm to anyone but I bet we both remember that law forever. And this happened roughly 15 years ago.
As an American living in the Europe for the past 20 years, roundabouts are so much better. I don't remember the last time I saw an intersection with a stop sign.
Hi, I luv your vids... First: The car at 22:55 is a Peugeot 307 cc which is a hard top convertible
2nd: In Vienna you have at least 2 but in average 3 signals. One overhead, hanging in the middle of crossing, one like in the picture and a smaller one on the same pole in "car hight". So you will see the light from far on the bigger traffic lights. When standing you will see red/yellow/green on the small one on the side and the overhead.
But I admit, I would like to have the english system where signals are across the road,
When you have signals across the road, it would be weird when you turn left or right and have to go through red lights (signals for drivers on the street perpendicular to yours).
Re. turning right on red. In the U.K. read left on red. A lot of traffic lights have an additional green arrow on the left of the normal set of lights. When the green arrow shows you can turn left when the main light is red.
You are right, the Chicago area really is one of the few US places rhat has something that comes close to a public transport network.
I lived in northern Indiana for a few years, amd it was really useable.
Though the L's ridership is abysmal.
Particularly since the 2020 pandemonium.
I've looked at the numbers for Chicago's L recently and it was similar and at times even inferior to those of Rennes, a French city of only 215K proper / 465K metro area, which has a 2 line automated subway network totaling something like 15 miles of lines.
The contrast was stark! The high frequency metro in Rennes moving something like twice the city's population on peak workdays.
Anyway, at least Chicago has something, even if it's no longer really addressing the needs that have evolved : many that would like to take the L need to make tangential / diagonal trips, which is impossible without going all the way through the center and back, so they drive instead.
The same issue is arising in NYC, to a much lesser extent, as there aren't many ways to go from Brooklyn to Queens without running through Manhattan.
I think that if you come here to Europe for a holiday, you have no problem at all with the signs along the road, you can drive away in any car since you take/like a manual car, you take every roundabout as it should be.... And you can't believe what it should be like on the European roads compared to America....... And your wife has to drag you back to the plane because you don't want to go back to America (and don't forget to visit the Skoda factory you love) 🤣🤣.....
He definately should study up a bit on the roadsigns first though, while many of them are obvious yes, not all of them are, and I have found that americans get suprisingly confused even by ones that to me are ridiculously obvious!
Turning right on red is only possible because in the USA almost no bicycle riders are part of traffic. There are also much less pedestrians because everyone is driving a car.
it does not stop car drivers left winging cyclists or ignoring them and just come out of the side road right in front of you. I had that done to me last week.
@@Mulberry2000 cyclist are vulnerable traffic participants and you in a car are not. Here in the Netherlands, probably the safest place in the world for cyclist, you as a car driver are automatically guilty if you are involved in an accident with cyclists. This way car drivers are extra careful not to hit them.
Yes i know I used to live in Holland.
For the "turning right at red", due to the width of the road in europe (i'm french), most of them don't have severals ways, but only one way to go straight, right, or left... So, it's useless to allow to turn at red, because most of the time you will be blocked by an other car who want to go straight !!! ;)
And in the case you have 2 or 3 lanes, you will have a dedicated light for the ones who turn... so...
22:30 you just stop before the cross section, it also helps giving more space to pedestrians and long vehicles to turn (like bus) in narrow streets
Trafic light position is just a matter of habits ! I've lived for 2 years in the US (Illinois and California), and I found the position of the lights after the intersection disturbing at the beginning. Then you get used to it ! In terms of logics, it is not that good IMHO: what would you say if one would place red stop lights at railroad crossings on the other side of the tracks :-) ? Good point in the US the right turn on red, which is quite a smart idea. Same for the left turn on red at somes places provided you are in a one way street crossing another one way street. In France, and in in most EU countries, the lights are just positionned were you need to stop. And you can see them easily. Furthermore in France, there is a repeater signal on the same mast than the main trafic light, about 1,5 meter from the ground.
Other tough points for me : the parking sign in the US, as shown in the video, that you have to read in full and understand. Sometimes, there are four of five pannels to read to know whether you may park or not ! As indicated also, numerous trafic signs in the US have written components, which are sometimes not self explanatory. Fun fact : for me "Speed limit 65" has always been "speed limit soixante-cing" (65 in French). Other differences are : in France you can pass school bus with limited speed, you can park near a fire hydrant, red flashing lights indicate a mandatory stop, and at intersections with no priority indicated (such as a stop or a give way sign) right of way is to vehicule coming from the right, etc.
8:47 In Europe when traffic lights do not work or there are no traffice lights, you go to the base rule: 'Right has the right of way'. If it is a busy crossing it will take some effort but it will be a clear and easy to understand way to continue.
17:25 In the EU almost all big cities have 'Ring roads' around the city, a multilane highway that goes both ways around the city with lots of exits to different city areas.
19:22 This is in the Netherlands (probably Amsterdam) outside the cities it is often even better. Cycling in the US seams dangerous and no fun because of your infrastructure.
22:30 The traffic light are not 'right next to you' exactly there is a stop line and the traffic lights are a little further down so you can look up or to your side and still see them without twisting your neck. (Re)watch some european car video's and check it out.
I disagree with the first point.Traffic lights have priority signs above them so in such cases the right of way can be established.
The right rule applies if two roads that are perpendicular have the same "priority". In such cases the person to the right goes first.
Turning right on red is deadly for pedestrians, cyclist and other traffic users.
It's criminal, the disregard the US has for any other user but the car !
Not "most times"... AT ALL TIMES the exit of thr highway is on the right ONLY
In many intersections you have the traffic light both close to you AND on the other side of the intersection. But about seeing the one close to you, its usually no problem as they are placed just enough far away from the stop line so you can see them clearly to your top right.
Traffic light next to you. - "How do you see it?" - Me having a fit.
You learn that in driving school: Stop early so that you can see the traffic light.
Do the US-Americans learn anything before allowed to drive in public?
21:00 - there’s almost always a solid white line at the lights where you stop so you scan still see the signal / a signal the opposite side of the junction with shades to stop people on other routes mistaking it as their light.
6:50 I think I've read or heard, that UPS has a special algorithm when planning the routes to only use righthand turns and they deliver 10% faster or something in that ballpark
Many, many US cities were built from the railroad from east to west like Atlanta to Los Angeles or they were destroyed alongside the US tram system in the early 20th century for the car and roads. The myth the US never had a large railway system is down to it happening before living memory and the lack of knowledge of America's transport history.
The car at 22:00 is a Peugeot 308 convertible.
22:30 yes, if you stop on the line you will have the lights on top and on your right side, sometimes in your left. To look at it you just lean to the front and look to where the light is.
Related to the #10, the lights are near the crosswalk, in general, you have a mark where to stop, the crosswalk and the lights, so you'll have like 3 to 5m until the pole.
22:10 Quite often there are additional lights lower down on the 'pole' if the visibility is poor.
6:03 NotJustBikes wants to know your location
Turn right on red is allowed for bicycles in The Netherlands. If we would allow it for cars, many pedestrians and bicyclist would get injured or even die.
Also almost all busier crossings have separate lanes and stoplights for going straight and going right/left.