Global Oil Companies Controlling Timing of Traffic Lights

Emme

Why are traffic lights nearly always red when you approach them or turn red just as you get to them? Most motorists would say that they have to stop at traffic lights more often than they can go through them.

Are global oil companies behind a conspiracy to maximise the amount of time people spend in traffic so they consume more fuel? It doesn't make sense as oil is a diminishing resource, but surely traffic lights could be timed so cars can go through them once in a while?

Brown Bomber

In the town where I live there are no traffic lights at all as far as I know, one at the railway crossing but that doesn't count.

It's great. Never stuck in a traffic as a driver, ever, and as a pedestrian every driver will slow down to let you cross any road.

Someone mentioned anarchism in the Freeman thread, anarchy is the natural result of having no laws or something like that and that got me thinking...Would anarchy be so bad? I mean having no lights should lead to anarchy, but people not masters make the system work, much better than the "masters" system. When I hear of anarchists the first image that comes into my head is a balaclavad petrol-bomb thrower or something like that but I don't think that is what it is all about, Gandhi was an anarchist.

I mean does anyone genuinely think that Brian Cowan is better qualified to be THE master of YOUR welfare`?

humanji

Well, anarchy has various meanings. There's the "everyone in balaclava's throwing petrol bombs" and there's the Ghandi "everyone does what they want, but stick to a social code" version, and many more.

In it's basic form I guess it's a lack of authority. But like all ideologies, it's good in theory and bad in practice. Just because you may live by a social and moral code is no reason to assume anyone else would. And if you try and get people to live by a certain code, then you're becoming the authority that anarchists rebel against. So I see it as a self defeating belief system.

Anyway, to the OP, is it not just a case of luck? I've had many times where all the lights have been green on a journey, and other times when they've been red when I get to them.

digme

Emme wrote: »

Why are traffic lights nearly always red when you approach them or turn red just as you get to them? Most motorists would say that they have to stop at traffic lights more often than they can go through them.

Are global oil companies behind a conspiracy to maximise the amount of time people spend in traffic so they consume more fuel? It doesn't make sense as oil is a diminishing resource, but surely traffic lights could be timed so cars can go through them once in a while?

I highlighted the part in your post which debunks your theory.
Oil is there if you drill deep enough for it,it's everywhere,and it's not a fossil fuel as most would have you believe.. I remember all the times pocket aces lost,there's your red light.

TalkieWalkie

Yup, oil is not diminishing. Also, in the U.S, you can drive through a red light when there is no traffic coming, it's probably the same in other places too.

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Someone mentioned anarchism in the Freeman thread, anarchy is the natural result of having no laws or something like that and that got me thinking...Would anarchy be so bad? I mean having no lights should lead to anarchy, but people not masters make the system work, much better than the "masters" system. When I hear of anarchists the first image that comes into my head is a balaclavad petrol-bomb thrower or something like that but I don't think that is what it is all about, Gandhi was an anarchist.

but anarchy does that mean without rules who is held responsible for their actions?
Most people in the situation u described behave in a civil manner, but there will always be one at some stage who doesnt and endangers lives, if there was anarchy how would this person be held acountable for his actions...

Torakx

robtri wrote: »

but anarchy does that mean without rules who is held responsible for their actions?
Most people in the situation u described behave in a civil manner, but there will always be one at some stage who doesnt and endangers lives, if there was anarchy how would this person be held acountable for his actions...

Natural course of life.Thats the rules of the jungle and why some animals roam in packs.
I would like some kind of version of an anarchaic system but the human race is not ready for it yet.
Some people are, but over all the control of society is in the hands of humans who are still very primitive, so i think that society cannot be taught to intellectually and spiritually grow and evolve to higher levels that would compliment a system such as an anarchaic one.
I agree with you about people being held accountable that is my issue mainly with anarchy is that stupid people will be able to do stupid things.
Id rather a system with nearly as much freedom and most important for me is always going to be educating the next generations so these issues are non existant nearly.

fontanalis

So how is oil not dimishing?

Cinful

Emme wrote: »

Are global oil companies behind a conspiracy to maximise the amount of time people spend in traffic so they consume more fuel?

No. Just transit authority incompetence.

TalkieWalkie

fontanalis wrote: »

So how is oil not dimishing?

Why don't you start a "how is oil not diminishing ?" thread.

rockmongrel

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Why don't you start a "how is oil not diminishing ?" thread.

You do realise what you're asking right? You asking someone to create a thread with the sole purpose being to answer a question. Why not make a thread explaining how you believe it's not?

Anyway, some of you seem to have a fundemental misunderstanding of anarchism, there is a very distinct difference between "anarchy" and "anarchism".

Brown Bomber

rockmongrel wrote: »

You do realise what you're asking right? You asking someone to create a thread with the sole purpose being to answer a question. Why not make a thread explaining how you believe it's not?

Anyway, some of you seem to have a fundemental misunderstanding of anarchism, there is a very distinct difference between "anarchy" and "anarchism".

This is every occurence of anarchy and anarchism. Where have I used either term incorrectly.

Someone mentioned anarchism in the Freeman thread, anarchy is the natural result of having no laws or something like that and that got me thinking...Would anarchy be so bad? I mean having no lights should lead to anarchy, but people not masters make the system work, much better than the "masters" system. When I hear of anarchists the first image that comes into my head is a balaclavad petrol-bomb thrower or something like that but I don't think that is what it is all about, Gandhi was an anarchist.