I live in West Michigan which along with Eastern New York has some of the worst snow conditions in the lower 48.
I think the number of times I've seen a traffic signal occluded or partially by snow in my lifetime is three or less. By far the bigger problem is lenses that haven't been cleaned since the Korean War and have a 1/4" of grease and smog caked on them.
Again, the problem is easy to solve. However, the companies making these things are more busy worrying about their IPO prices and marketing rather than proper field testing. As usual, it's easier blaming the technology.
+1 to everything you wrote. Not a difficult problem to solve at all. Just putting shields around the lights, as we have had in NYC for decades, solves 95% of the problem by preventing snow from hitting the lens in the first place. I don't get why that isn't universally required nationwide. Shields also help protect the lens in case vandals throw rocks at it by making it a lot more difficult to get a direct hit. I don't believe I've
ever seen a traffic light obscured by snow here, and it's not from lack of looking. I've had an obsession of sorts from time to time with traffic signals ever since I was a kid. I pretty much notice any changes, as well as anything unusual. That includes blown snow.
Oh, and quaint idea about going back to incandescent, LL but it isn't happening any more then a revival of the steam locomotive ( yes, on some railfan sites I frequent there are actually railfans suggesting that we bring back steam locomotives even though the economics of doing so are prohibitive, they're utterly incapable of meeting today's schedules due to their poor tractive characteristics, not to mention they would have a bit of trouble meeting Tier III emissions standards). Do you have any idea how much in labor and electricity municipalities are saving with LED traffic signals? In NYC alone the figure is an annual energy savings of more than 81% (
more than $6.3 million ). That's in addition to labor savings from less frequent replacement. Also, by switching to LED, we now have a system in place at some intersections where the traffic signals can run off battery power in the event of an outage. This wasn't even possible with the old type signals at any reasonable cost. This makes things safer than having no signals at all in the event of a power outage. Another thing worth mentioning is that the new signals here are far more visible than the old ones. I can see what aspect a signal is from half a mile out, assuming I have a clear line of sight. With the older signals the limit was 1/4 mile or so.
As with any new technology, you weigh the benefits versus the drawbacks. The benefits here are many. In this case, the only minor drawback, which is more or less solveable, is a somewhat greater potential to be obscured by blown snow, and then only in a handful of states with frequent, heavy snowfall. But as I said a few posts back, if drivers do what they're supposed to do, and treat a blocked signal as a stop sign, then that's a nonissue. The accident you linked to happened because the driver hitting the other car making the left didn't bother to stop even though he had no signal. Moreover, he went through a dark signal proceeding at a high enough rate of speed to result in a fatal collision. Had he at least slowed down enough to check for traffic, there might have been no accident, or at worst a fender bender. So he was wrong on two counts. As is the case in nearly 100% of collisions, human error was the primary cause here. But we now have such low standards when it comes to driver training and licensing that I've given up any hope of expecting drivers to do what they're supposed to do. IMO, articles like this do a major disservice to the general public. Other drivers will read these articles. If they happen to have a collision in snowy conditions, they'll blame the traffic signals even if they intentionally ran a light. Very convenient. When the police get there and find an unobscured signal, they can always say the wind knocked down the snow. So this is just what we need, yet another thing to blame collisions on instead of the poor/distracted driving which is really the culprit.
BTW, my mom was involved in a similar type of accident 9 years ago and the signals
were working fine. She was making a left on the green arrow, and then gets sideswiped by someone running a red light at probably 60 mph ( in a 30 mph zone ). Distracted driving caused by a cell phone. There were even cracks in the other drivers wideshield where the cell phone hit. My point here is signal technology is irrelevant if drivers aren't properly trained. That includes proper attitude. Too many drivers think of their car as an extension of their office or their living room. The fact that you actually have to make laws banning texting while driving, when common sense already says you shouldn't look down at a 2 inch screen, trying to hit tiny keys, while piloting a motor vehicle, is about all that needs to be said on the state of driving training/attitude these days.
Sorry all about the novel here. This is a subject I feel very strongly about even though I don't drive a car. Too many times as a pedestrian or cyclist I've had things nearly happen because of clueless drivers running lights, not looking while turning, or otherwise being oblivious to the world around them. Just in the last decade I've seen how much worse things have gotten.
