Unintended hazard: Energy-efficient traffic lights can't melt snow

Re:Unintended hazard: Energy-efficient traffic lights can't ... by furyg3 on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @02:33AM (#998305)

I wonder if a clear plastic shield coated in Teflon would work...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unintended hazard: Energy-efficient traffic lights can't ... by jules on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @04:21AM (#998416)

Or make the tubes (more) open at the bottom and tilt the lights a little bit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unintended hazard: Energy-efficient traffic lights can't ... by pmjordan on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @06:23AM (#998567)

Yep, that's how it's done with most traffic lights in central Europe, e.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/30626457@N00/4580229/

I've never seen lights with that design obscured by snow, and many are LED based now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unintended hazard: Energy-efficient traffic lights can't ... by ZeroGravitas on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @08:23AM (#998691)

Doesn't that very photo you link to show a light obscured by snow?

(The top one a little bit, and the middle one much more so. The bottom one is the clearest because the snow can't build up on the cover of the one below).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unintended hazard: Energy-efficient traffic lights can't ... by paulsilver on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:28AM (#998800)

If you look at the next photo in the stream - http://www.flickr.com/photos/dustpuppy/4580359 you'll see the red light is still two-thirds visible. Whilst that's not perfect, it's better than nothing. Coverage of the amber (middle) light isn't much of an issue as it's used in transition between the main lights. In those conditions, not seeing the amber isn't going to need much of a behavioural change.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unintended hazard: Energy-efficient traffic lights can't ... by ars on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @03:54AM (#998380)

Teflon is not clear. Maybe really thin? But it's quite difficult to attach teflon to anything.

[ Parent | on HN ]